Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03273 6416 




San Francisco Public Library 

;;ry 
100 Larkin St 
San Francisco, CA 941 C2 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 




L5oo 
9ft 

ho. I 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1994 
2:05 RM. 



DOCUMENTS OEPT. 

FEB 2 3 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



241-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 19 94 
2:05 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



3 1223 03273 6416 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI , Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

LYNNEL M. POLLACK, Member 
Industrial Welfare Commission 

JACK HENNING 

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 

MARK SCHACHT 

California Rural Legal Assistance 

JO-LINDA THOMPSON, General Counsel 
California Restaurant Association 

JULIANNE BROYLES 

California Chamber of Commerce 

PAUL MAHAN 

California Trucking Association 

WILLIE WASHINGTON 

California Manufacturers Association 

ROY GABRIEL 

California Farm Bureau Federation 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

JIM ABRAMS 

California Hotel and Motel Association 

BILL CAMPBELL, President 

4 California Manufacturers Association 

5 BETH CAPELL 

California Nurses Association 
6 

7 



9 
10 
II 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

LYNNELL M. POLLOCK, Member 

Industrial Welfare Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

JACK HENNING 

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 1 

MARK SCHACHT 

California Rural Legal Assistance 3 

Witnesses in Support; 

JO-LINDA THOMPSON, General Counsel 

California Restaurant Association 4 

JULIE BROYLES 

California Chamber of Commerce 5 

PAUL MAHAN 

California Trucking Association 5 

WILLIE WASHINGTON 

California Manufacturers Association 6 

ROY GABRIEL 

California Farm Bureau Federation 6 

JIM ABRAMS 

California Hotel and Motel Association 7 

BILL CAMPBELL, President 

California Manufacturers Association 7 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Vote to Increase Minimum Wage 8 

Frequency of Issue 9 

Tenure on Commission 9 



4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 20 



V 

INDEX (Continued) 

Witness in Opposition; 

BETH CAPELL 

California Nurses Association 9 

Rebuttal by MS. POLLOCK 10 

Erosion of Eight-hour Day 10 

Support for Increase in Minimum Wage 11 

Prior Confirmations by Committee 12 

Management/Employer Representative 12 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Comments Regarding Availability of Social 

Services for Low-income Wage Earners 12 

Allowable Earnings for AFDC Recipients 13 

Motion to Confirm 14 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Reasons for Voting against Confirmation .... 14 

Appointee's Policy Is too Meager 15 

Response by SENATOR CRAVEN 16 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Vote on Increasing Minimum Wage 16 

Vote of Others on Commission 16 

Statements by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Need to Improve Workers' Technical Skills ... 17 

Management Representation on Commission .... 17 

Committee Action 18 

Termination of Proceedings 18 

Certificate of Reporter 19 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Governor's appointees appearing 
today, Lynnell M. Pollock, Member, of the Industrial Welfare 
Commission. 

Ms. Pollock, please come forward. We'll ask you what 
we ask all the Governor's appointees during the confirmation 
hearing, and that is why you feel you're qualified to assume 
this position? 

MS. POLLOCK: Good afternoon, Senators. 

I am an employer in the State of California, and the 
work of the Industrial Welfare Commission certainly has a great 
deal of bearing on myself and my husband as employers. 

I'm interested in the issues. I have been on the 
Commission for a number of years, and feel that as an employer 
representative, I am well qualified for that position. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any questions of Ms. 
Pollock? Not right now. 

Is there anyone here in support? Is there anyone 
here in opposition? Mr. Henning is coming forward. 

Ms. Pollock, maybe we'll have you respond to any 
opposition testimony. 

MS. POLLOCK: Thank you. 

MR. HENNING: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
we are in opposition because we believe we're obliged to support 
the principles that brought this Commission into being under 
Hiram Johnson, a liberal Republican of our early century. 

We feel that Ms. Pollock never voted in consistency 



with those liberal traditions and principles. We are 
particularly disturbed over the fact that she was the great 
advocate of the 12-hour day, which we regard as a social 
disorder. Under that 12-hour day, there's a terrible burden put 
on the single parent, and in most cases, particularly when that 
single parent is a woman, more vulnerable to the evils of our 
society. She goes to work at 9:00 a.m.; works until 12:00. Has 
an hour for lunch, then she works from 1:00 to 10:00 p.m. 

I have a daughter who works in a child care center, 
and I'm fairly familiar with what the centers are. I don't know 
of any, there may be some, but I don't know of any that stay 
open to that hour. 

So, the children are on the street. And we emphasize 
constantly to not only -- and she's not the sole person 
responsible for this social disorder, but we emphasize 
constantly to them the terror that this has meant in our urban 
centers. It's falling with a terrible impact on minority 
families, the single woman, and those kids are on the streets at 
night . 

The children of the street gave us the greatest urban 
riot in the history of America. And we're increasing the number 
of wandering children when we have the single parent working 
until 10:00 p.m. And I'm not counting the travel time from the 
job to the home. 

It's a dreadful thing that anyone in conscience could 
vote to establish that kind of an order. 

Again, we're opposed to another concept she voiced at 
two meetings that I recall when we sought to increase the 






minimum wage to 4.25 an hour, which, for a family of two, places 
that family below the poverty line by the determination of our 
federal government. And I'm not speaking of the Clinton federal 
government. I'm speaking of the Republican government of the 
past 12-year rule. Under their concepts, that was an abominable 
wage . 

Ms. Pollock had a solution she voiced on two 
occasions that there are social programs available for such 
people who can't live on the minimum wage. Well, aside from 
contradicting the very purpose of the minimum wage by such a 
reference, let's think of the social burden on the fiscal 
responsibilities of the state -- the economic burdens, I should 
say, and the fiscal responsibilities of the state: turning 
workers of low income into welfare dependents. It's a horrible 
concept . 

So, we could not in conscience be silent on the 
matter of her reappointment. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any other discussion or 
debate? Is there anyone else here in opposition? 

MR. SCHACHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members. Mark Schacht, California Rural Legal Assistance. 

We're here essentially for the same reason that 
Mr. Henning has appeared. We can't either in good conscience 
support this nominee's renomination. 

We don't believe it is appropriate to reappoint a 
nominee who has failed to ever vote to increase the minimum 
wage. We think the evidence that has been presented to the 
Industrial Welfare Commission over the last several years, the 



clear weight of that evidence would dictate a minimum wage 
increase . 

We don't believe Ms. Pollock will ever vote to 
increase the minimum wage in the State of California, and we're 
now at a point where we ' re on the cusp of a new two-year 
evaluation of the adequacy of the minimum wage, and Ms. 
Pollock's appointment is before you. We think that it's 
appropriate to have new blood; somebody who would look at the 
issue, we think, more fairly and objectively, and raise our 
deplorably low minimum wage. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

In support, please come forward. 

MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I'm Jo-Linda Thompson. I'm General Counsel for the 
California Restaurant Association. 

I've appeared in front of the Industrial Welfare 
Commission in many hearings over the past nine years, 
representing the Restaurant Association. 

I just wanted to make a couple of points. Number 
one, as the Chairperson, Ms. Pollock has always conducted 
herself in a very fair, impartial, patient way in very trying 
kinds of hearings . 

On the minimum wage issue, I just felt strongly that 
in the last set of hearings, over, and over, and over again, the 
evidence was that the state of the economy in California, and 
indeed, the country, was at a point where the minimum wage could 
not be raised at this time. Even the federal government, even 



the Clinton administration which was looking at contemplating 
raising the minimum wage, has put it on the back burner for the 
same reason. So, I think she had more than her management 
perspective hat on when she analyzed the minimum wage issue at 
this time. 

And the Restaurant Association, and I know a number 
of other employers are here to support her nomination, and we 
would appreciate a "yes" vote. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Please come forward. 

MS. BROYLES: Hello. Good morning, or good 
afternoon. My name is Julie Broyles . I represent the 
California Chamber of Commerce on Insurance and Employee 
Relations . 

We'd like to concur with what the Restaurant 
Association has said. Ms. Pollock had the courage to vote 
against a minimum wage increase at a time that California 
employers couldn't bear another increase in their employer 
costs . 

We would like to support the nomination of Lynnell 
Pollock. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Please come forward. 

MR. MAHAN: Paul Mahan, representing the California 
Trucking Association. 

I'd like to just reiterate what has previously been 
said, but I'd also like to remind the Committee that the -- by 



statute, the Industrial Welfare Commission is made up of two 
labor representatives, two employer representatives, and one 
public member. And Ms. Pollock is an employer representative. 

It's not always realistic to think that she would 
vote on labor's side of an issue. 

I think she has done a fair and objective job of 
ruling, and we would strongly support her confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone else who would 
wish to testify? Please come forward. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 
Members. Willie Washington with the California Manufacturers 
Association. 

We support the reconfirmation of Ms. Pollock. We've 
worked with her over the last seven years and had an opportunity 
to work with her. We think that she has been fair. She's been 
very receptive to the ideas, the changes and all, that we have 
gone to the Commission for. 

I think that she has been fairly even-handed in the 
way that the rules have been addressed. I think that she has 
managed the committee as Chair in a way that has been both 
receptive and been respectful to all the people who appeared 
before it. 

Therefore, we support her reconfirmation and urge 
your support. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Please come forward. 

MR. GABRIEL: I'm Roy Gabriel, representing the 
California Farm Bureau Federation. 



I've known Ms. Pollock for the last 15 years and 
support her reconfirmation of this position. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. ABRAMS : Jim Abrams with the California Hotel and 
Motel Association. 

We have also worked with Ms. Pollock during the time 
that she's been on the Commission. Notwithstanding the fact 
that she, like three other people on the Commission, are put 
there specifically to represent points of view that the 
Legislature felt were very important, she has been very careful 
in her position as Chair to make sure that everybody gets a fair 
hearing, that all points of view are considered, that the staff 
does what it's supposed to do, and that the Commission moves 
forward in dealing with the issues that are before it. 

We also support her reconfirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman and Members, Bill 
Campbell, President of the California Manufacturers Association, 
to add some — if you'll excuse the term -- weight to what 
Willie Washington had to say; a term I don't use very often, by 
the way. 

We would like to go on record as being in strong 
support of Ms. Pollock in her position and her activities on 
behalf of the Industrial Welfare Commission. 

We think when you have a division between management 
and labor, she has represented both positions well, but 
particularly management, which is her assigned position on the 



8 

Commission. 

We think she has been receptive to opinions from both 
sides on issues that have confronted her. We think she has been 
imminently fair to both sides, and we think it is proper that 
the Rules Committee and the Senate would reconfirm her. 

We think her activities have been good for 
California, good for keeping California in a competitive 
position. And on the issue that she does represent a particular 
side in that, that in the interest of fairness, she ought to be 
— she ought to have the opportunity to continue to do that in 
view of the fact there's been strong support for her position in 
the past. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has she ever voted for an increase 
in the minimum wage? 

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, she did, in 1988. She voted for 
an increase up to $4 from -- 

MS. POLLOCK: The final decision was 4.25, but I did 
support an increase to $4. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was that unanimous, the $4 one? 

MS. POLLOCK: Pardon me? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Was that a unanimous vote? 

MS. POLLOCK: No, the $4 vote was not. The labor 
member, David Padilla, voted against it. 

MR. CAMPBELL: He wanted it higher than what it was, 
but it was -- she has voted for an increase, Senator Petris. 

MS. POLLOCK: That was the proposal that was put out 
by the Industrial Welfare Commission in that round of minimum 



wage hearings, was the $4 figure. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that the only time you voted for 
it? 

MS. POLLOCK: I had also voted for a slightly smaller 
increase in that same round, but that vote had failed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does this come up pretty regularly 
every two years? 

MS. POLLOCK: Yes, lately we have had a review 
approximately every two years, the last three reviews. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You've been on nine years now? 

MS. POLLOCK: Eleven. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Eleven years. That's once in eleven 
years. It's better than nothing. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? 
Please come forward. 

MS. CAPELL: Beth Capell, California Nurses 
Association. 

I'd like to apologize to Ms. Pollock for not having a 
chance to communicate with her prior to now. 

We oppose the confirmation of Ms. Pollock. We have 
had a number of issues before the IWC. We gave testimony in 
support of increasing the minimum wage on a number of occasions. 

We have also, nurses and other health care workers, 
been subject to a dramatic erosion of the eight-hour day, an 
ongoing, inch-by-inch, taking away of overtime pay for hours in 
excess of eight hours. 



10 

I bring this to the attention of this Committee not 
only because of the substance which we object to, but because of 
the way this was done last year, in 1993. At that time, a new 
pubic member was appointed by the Governor literally at 11:00 
the night before the Industrial Welfare Commission met. The 
Commission met the next day and voted to further undermine the 
8-hour day without this member ever having heard testimony or, 
to the best of our knowledge, reviewed the issues. Ms. Pollock 
was part of the majority that voted to further undermine 
overtime pay for hours in excess of eight. 

For those reasons, we are opposed to her 
confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Is there anybody else here who wishes to testify? 

Ms. Pollock, you can rebut. 

MS. POLLOCK: Okay, thank you. 

Yes, there are a few things that I would like to 
clarify, perhaps. 

First of all, Mr. Henning spoke about the erosion of 
the eight-hour day and twelve-hour days without overtime. 

I would like to say that this issue has been before 
the Commission for a number of years. It is something that both 
employees and employers have desired to have. This is still 
within the context of a 40-hour work week. 

What it is, is, meeting the changing things that are 
going on in the workplace, both nationally and in California, to 
allow more flexibility for workers to work schedules different 
than an eight-hour day. Presently in California, because of the 



11 

daily overtime, there are constrictions against this. 

Oftentimes, workers want to work longer hours and few 
days per week, and we have tried to provide this in the orders. 

Again, I would like to reiterate, it is with overtime 
after 40 hours in a week. It is not changing that total number 
of hours worked per week. It is only allowing them to work 
longer hours in one day, and perhaps having more days off per 
week. 

Particularly in California, many workplaces have a 
24-hour operation, and this is desirable in those situations. 
The hospital industry has been one that has looked at this for a 
number of years. 

And I might remind the Committee that governmental 
entities, such as your county hospitals and so forth, and those 
covered by collective bargaining agreements, can already do 
this . And that is why we are looking towards the private sector 
workers who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement 
who wanted the same type of flexibility that other workers 
already had. So, that was one of the issues with the 12-hour 
day. 

The minimum wage, again, I have supported an increase 
in the past when we went through the '87 round of hearings that 
resulted in the increase to 4.25 in 1988. I did support an 
increase, as did all the other members on the Commission. It 
was just a matter of what that increase was going to be. 

As I mentioned earlier, I am on record as voting for 
an increase to $4 per hour. 

I'd also just like to point out Lhal I have been 



12 

confirmed by this Committee three times in the past. I have had 
opposition before. When I was -- the very first time when I was 
appointed, there were letters from organized labor opposing my 
appointment. I had no track record at the time, and I think 
it's just part of their philosophy, perhaps, to oppose me. 

I am a management /employer representative, and I have 
tried to balance the needs of all of the people that come before 
us, and weigh the testimony. The minimum wage issue, of course, 
is one of our biggest issues. But again, we have to look at a 
lot of factors. We have a lot of testimony from various 
positions as to what they are advocating, and we have to balance 
all of that and come forth with a decision. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Is there any other testimony? Do any Members wish to 
speak? Senator Petris then Senator Craven. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Henning mentioned your comment 
at one of the recent meetings relating to social services that 
are available to people who can't make it on minimum wage. 

MS. POLLOCK: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you elaborate on that for us? 

MS. POLLOCK: Yes, I ' d be glad to, Senator Petris. 

A lot of the people that have testified before the 
Commission on the minimum wage issue are -- the minimum wage 
workers are, or very close to minimum wage, and a lot of them 
are hurting, and I agree with that. 

But the minimum wage is a base wage for an unskilled 
worker. Some of these people are trying to support a large 
family on minimum wage with one worker. Some of these people 



13 

only work part-time and are trying to support themselves or a 
family on a minimum wage, and they are not full-time employees. 
Some of these people have very limited skills, particularly 
limited English use, and do not have the capability to advance 
to further positions until they have increased their job skills. 

So, I had made the comment that there are other 
social programs available that can help these people. The 
Earned Income Tax Credit is one that is not being widely used 
yet by people that could qualify it and have more cash income 
available to them. 

There are the Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children. There are other social programs, the Job Training 
Programs, that are available. 

And I think that we cannot solve all of these 
problems with an increase in the minimum wage, particularly a 
fairly small increase, which is what we usually deal with 
percentage-wise . 

So that, that was why I had made that comment. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How much is a recipient of AFDC 
allowed to earn? 

MS. POLLOCK: I'm not knowledgeable of that right 
now. I'd have to look -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Then you're not sure that that's 
available . 

There was a time when we encouraged working mothers 
who were on welfare to go out and work and improve their skills. 

MS. POLLOCK: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That program was killed by President 



14 

Reagan. I don't now if it's ever been restored. He said that 
it didn't make sense to pay people welfare money when they 
actually had a job, even though that job was so meager it 
couldn't support the family; it only helped a little bit. 

MS. POLLOCK: Right, and I think the GAIN program in 
California is a good example of a program that is available, 
although I know the funding is very short. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's available on paper, but you're 
right; there's not much funding there. 

MS. POLLOCK: But that increases the job skills also, 
plus providing that support for them, particularly the working 
mother that needs transportation, child care -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did you also have welfare in mind as 
an alternative? 

MS. POLLOCK: No, no. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's not included? Well, AFDC is 
a welfare program. 

MS. POLLOCK: It's a welfare program, but we have 
people coming to us, you know, with very said stories of their 
life, and you know, I think there's other programs out there 
that can help them, too; that minimum wage, an increase in the 
minimum wage is not the only solution for some of those people. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves confirmation 
be recommended to the Floor. 

Is there anyone else here who chooses to testify? 

Ms. Pollock, my own vote, I think you come with, once 
again, highly credible background and a record of integrity, but 



15 

also a policy is very important, too. 

From my perspective, after so many years on the 
Board, it just strikes me as strange -- along the line of 
Senator Petris ' s questioning -- that your votes in favor of 
increasing the minimum wage, despite the fact that you are the 
management representative and that is something we do 
appreciate, we factor in as a part of why you vote the way you 
do, it's just too meager, in my humble estimation, as to the few 
times that you voted for minimum wage. 

And it appears, from my reading of the record, that 
those couple of times were simply to vote for an alternative for 
a less complete increase. 

So, it's difficult for me to cast a "no" vote, 
because I think you are a person of integrity, but policy is why 
we're all here. And policy is why you are appointed to the 
Board. 

I just think that your policy in this case is just 
too meager as far as what the times demand as to what a member 
of the Board should be doing as far as increasing the minimum 
wage. It's almost the same as if you almost never voted for the 
increase. 

So, I'm not going to vote "do pass" myself, and I 
have in the past, I believe, in your case, and have gladly done 
so. But after so many years, your record just is not enough. 

That's a policy point that I'm indicating, but it's a 
policy point that I happen to hold to very strongly. 

Does anybody else wish to say something? Senator 
Craven. 



16 

SENATOR CRAVEN: If I may, I'm always impressed when 
Jack Henning gets up and speaks because he does it so 
eloquently, and he says things that are very, very correct. And 
it's very, very difficult for me, as one individual, to say, 
well, you don't now what you're talking about, because that 
would not be correct. 

But on the other hand, there are a lot of other 
people who trooped up here and came of their own volition, I 
suppose, to say a few kind words about this lady, and I am 
impressed with what they said as well. And I think the Chairman 
and my colleagues would feel the same way. 

She has, I suppose, said that she represents the 
management end, and there's another one who sits with you as 
management rep., right? 

MS. POLLOCK: Yes, that's correct. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: In the instances where you voted 
against raising minimum wage, did that person also vote the same 
way, or did they vote for it? 

MS. POLLOCK: The other management representative and 
I have always voted the same on the minimum wage issue, that I 
can recall. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: And would I be correct in assuming 
that the labor reps, did the same thing, voted for, both of 
them? 

MS. POLLOCK: Yes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: So, the only thing that you really 
could learn from that is, you never want to be the public 
member . 



17 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. POLLOCK: The public member is in a very 
difficult position -- 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Obviously. 

MS. POLLOCK: -- very many times on that Commission. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: But you know, what this lady has 
said makes a lot of sense, really, if you're willing to admit 
it. Giving them, you know, 5 percent, and instead of making $4, 
they make $4.20, that isn't going to improve their English 
language skills. It isn't going to improve their technical 
expertise. It isn't going to do any number of things. It is 
also a certain sociological salve to the individual. 

I may well have been, if I had been in your position, 
I probably would have voted for that, but you didn't, and I 
admire your guts in doing what you think is appropriate. 

But I think that you should consider those things, 
and also, as I recall earlier in her comments, she said the 
labor people come and do their thing, and she does that for 
management. And I don't think that she should be criticized for 
that. I think that that's only reacting to what she feels her 
responsibility includes. 

If she's been on there for eleven years, this woman 
has to be as knowledgeable as anybody we've ever had serve on 
there. And she obviously has to be fair, or somebody would have 
taken her off long before now. 

So, for that reason, I was very happy to make the 
motion for her acceptance by this Committee. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator. 



18 

Is there anybody else here who wishes to speak, 
testify? 

Then there is a motion before us. Secretary will 
call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala No. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris No. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: The motion fails. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is two to three; the 
motion fails. 

That means the nomination is still in Committee. If 
for some reason there is a third vote, I'd be glad to reschedule 
it before the termination date. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:52 P.M. ] 

--00O00 — 



19 
CERTIFICAT E OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

lZ y IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this i-L day of January, 1994. 



rrC^^A^t 




S ^fVELYN / J. -MIZAK 
^Shorthand Reporter 



241 -R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 241 -R when ordering. 



SCO 



^ 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1994 
1:55 P.M. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 3 1994 

SAN FBAHC18CO 
PUBUCUBHAKY 



242-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1994 
1:55 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

STEPHEN MAYBERG, Ph.D., Director 
Department of Mental Health 

SENATOR MIKE THOMPSON 

TERESA ROCHA, Warden 

California State Prison at Folsom 

California Department of Corrections 

GEORGE A. SMITH, Warden 

California State Prison, Kings County at Corcoran 

California Department of Corrections 

THEO WHITE, Warden 

California State Prison at Sacramento 

California Department of Corrections 

LEON RALPH 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

ILENE WILLIAMS, Chief Deputy Warden 
Corcoran State Prison 



Ill 



APPEARANCES < Continued^ 

ARTHUR WELTON, Correctional Officer 
Corcoran State Prison 

CYNTHIA KIRSHNER, Correctional Officer 
Folsom State Prison 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 



STEPHEN MAYBERG, Ph.D., Director 

Department of Mental Health 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Accomplishments at Department 2 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Meeting Mental Health Needs of Homeless 

Population 4 

Monitoring of Programs 5 

Consolidating Department of Alcohol and Drug 

Programs with Department of Mental Health .... 5 

Statements in Support by SENATOR MIKE THOMPSON .... 7 

Motion to Confirm 8 

Committee Action 8 

TERESA ROCHA, Warden 

California State Prison at Folsom 

California Department of Corrections 9 

Background and Experience 9 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Present Prison Capacity 10 

Level of Security at Prison 11 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Situation at Folsom re Sexual Harassment 

Complaints 11 

Sexual Harassment Training Program 13 

Reduction in Complaints as a Result of 

Training 14 



V 

INDEX (Continued^ 

First Step if Employee Encounters Problem .... 15 

Change from Past Practice 16 

Literacy Program at Folsom 17 

Judgment in San Quentin Sexual Harassment Case . . 18 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Prisons 18 

Specific Programs in Place to Deal with 

Substance Abuse in Prison 20 

Witness in Support: 

LEON RALPH 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 2 

Motion to Confirm 21 

Committee Action 22 

GEORGE A. SMITH, Warden 

California State Prison, Kings County at Corcoran 

California Department of Corrections 22 

Background and Experience 22 

Accomplishments at Corcoran 23 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Most Pressing Problems Facing Corrections 

in Next Five Years 23 

Witnesses in Support: 

LEON RALPH 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 24 

ILENE WILLIAMS, Chief Deputy Warden 

Corcoran State Prison 25 

ARTHUR WELTON, Correctional Officer 

Corcoran State Prison 26 

Motion to Confirm 27 

Committee Action 2 7 



VI 



INDEX t Continued) 

THEO WHITE, Warden 

California State Prison, Sacramento 

California Department of Corrections 28 

Background and Experience 2 8 

Witnesses in Support; 

LEON RALPH 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 30 

CYNTHIA KIRSHNER, Correctional Officer 

California State Prison at Folsom 31 

Motion to Confirm 33 

Committee Action 33 

Termination of Proceedings 33 

Certificate of Reporter 34 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Let's go to Item 2, which is 
Governor's appointees appearing today. We begin with Stephen 
Mayberg, Ph.D., Director of Mental Health. 

Would you come up and tell us why you feel that you 
are qualified for this very important position, please. 

DR. MAYBERG: Thank you, Senators, for the 
opportunity to come before you and present my qualifications. 

I'm Dr. Stephen Mayberg, and I've been the State 
Mental Health Director for the last 11 months. These 11 months 
have been an exciting time for me. They've been full of 
dramatic change and possibility. 

I came to California in 1971, to do community mental 
health, doing an internship at the University of California at 
Davis, and I've remained in California since then. I've been a 
clinician; I've developed programs; I've supervised staff; I've 
been an administrator, and I've been a local mental health 
director. 

In all of that time, I've always been struck by the 
incredible commitment, competence, and energy that the mental 
health constituency has brought to solving problems . This 
struggle that consumers and families have dealing with mental 
illness and stigma, the battles that providers and programs have 
with limited resources, have all served to strengthen their 
resolve in the focus of obtaining necessary services in our 
community. For 20 years, I've been involved with that 
constituency, and I've been consistent in the expression of my 



values, which include most of our energy resources need to go 
into direct services and to develop a system that fosters 
independence and keeps empowering the consumers, the families, 
and the providers to be able to change, grow and evolve. 

The challenge of accepting the job of the Director of 
the State Department of Mental Health was both exhilarating and 
daunting. Realignment has dramatically changed the structure of 
the mental health service delivery system, and the State 
Department of Mental Health needed to change to reflect this new 
value system and the reality of realignment or not exist at all. 

I've always been a staunch advocate for strong 
Department of Mental Health leadership, and that we need that 
leadership to develop a statewide program that embodies our 
strengths and our innovations. Since I've had the opportunity 
to be Director, I've embarked on a program with several major 
initiatives . 

My first priority was to reorganize the Department to 
reflect the realities of realignment. Staffing in the 
Department has been reduced by 29 percent, and the programs have 
been structured to provide more assistance, more information, 
and to deal more effectively with statewide issues. This 
reorganization focuses in on training, technical assistance, and 
the reform of the State Hospital system, as well as the 
development of performance outcomes, and advocating for new 
systems of care. 

A second major initiative for me was to implement a 
program to encourage more federal financial participation. 
We've begun a statewide implementation of coordinated care, or 



what's called the rehab option, which allows counties to more 
realistically provide services and to receive needed third party 
reimbursement for those services . We ' re now able to broaden the 
range of services that are Medi-Cal/Medicaid eligible, as well 
as to develop programs that could provide services in the field 
rather than in the clinic. It's one step we've taken towards 
developing a managed care response in mental health that 
includes carving out the mental health piece. A partnership 
between the public and private sector in the delivery of crucial 
mental health services is implicit in this design. 

And the third major initiative for me has been the 
reform of the State Hospital system. The State Hospitals had 
become at risk for closure because of their cost for services. 
There was a situation where counties, who are now the purchasers 
of State Hospitals, were not able to or interested in purchasing 
services because of the expense or the program relevancy. If 
the State Hospitals were to survive, they needed to restructure, 
reorganize, and develop programs that were cost-efficient, 
desired by the community, and perceived by the families and 
consumers as worthwhile. 

Over the last nine months, the State Hospitals have 
gone through a dramatic restructuring. We've moved away from 
acute hospital models to one of partial hospitalization, more 
independence, more choice, and more encouragement to interact 
with all our constituency: the consumers, the families, and the 
counties. And I'm proud to announce, in that restructuring, 
that all of our hospitals are now JCHO accredited. 

All of these changes have been essential in the 



development of the credibility of the State Department of Mental 
Health. With the support and encouragement of all of our 
constituencies, California has begun an ambitious program to 
dramatically restructure the mental health services delivery 
system since realignment. We're innovative; we're creative. We 
hope to return to the national prominence of quality of care 
that California deserves. 

It's been a very exciting year for me, and we've 
begun many projects. I only hope that I'll have the opportunity 
to continue these projects with your endorsement as the Director 
of the State Department of Mental Health. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any questions? 

MS. MICHEL: I think Senator Thompson is here to 



speak. 



SENATOR PETRIS: Have a seat, Senator. 

Senator Ayala, did you want to ask a question or wait 



for — 



SENATOR AYALA: I want to ask Dr. Mayberg a question. 

Doctor, what steps is the Department of Mental Health 
taking to ensure that adequate resources are devoted to the 
mental health needs of the homeless in the State of California? 

DR. MAYBERG: I think that part of what we've tried 
to do is restructure our program to both maximize our federal 
financial participation and also target populations, and one of 
the target populations is the homeless mentally ill. 

They are a very high priority for us . We have 
several specific programs for them: a PATH program, and the 



McKinney program. And we recently submitted an access grant to 
the federal government asking for almost $5 million in federal 
funds to target this particular population, showing that our 
system of care can make a difference, and find housing, 
employment, and treatment for these unfortunate individuals. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you monitoring this program to 
see what results we're achieving there on a yearly basis? How 
do you get the reports back on the program you're describing? 

DR. MAYBERG: Several years ago, there was a Rand 
study about the efficacy of the homeless programs, and it 
suggested that there is wide variability in — from county to 
county in terms of implementing — 

SENATOR AYALA: County by county? 

DR. MAYBERG: County by county. And that's why I 
think that it's important to have a strong State Department of 
Mental Health, to be able to ensure that no matter where you are 
in the State of California, you have a reasonable access to 
treatment . 

SENATOR AYALA: You're on top of the statistics. You 
can tell us on a monthly basis whether we're improving the -- 

DR. MAYBERG: I wish it were so. Part of what we're 
working towards is developing a system of performance outcome so 
we do know where the individuals are, who we're serving, and 
more importantly, who we're not serving. 

SENATOR AYALA: The idea of consolidating the 
Department of Mental Health with the Department of Alcohol and 
Drug Programs has come up several times in discussion in context 
of the budget discussions. 



Could you comment on the merits or demerits or 
pitfalls of these potential consolidations? 

DR. MAYBERG: I think that a year and a half ago, 
serious questions were raised about whether or not there even 
should be a Department of Mental Health. And part of the 
analysis of that suggested that there needed to be strong 
leadership with specific focus, and that's what we've tried to 
do. 

There is an overlap in who we serve in the mental 
health community and the alcohol and drug community; that many 
of our target population are what's called dually diagnosed. 
They have both emotional disorders and substance abuse 
disorders . 

But we do have a very different philosophy in the 
Department of Mental Health and the Department of Alcohol and 
Drug. We look at the majority of our treatment, probably, as 
involuntary treatment for people who don't want treatment and 
are unable, because of their illness, to make good decisions 
about whether they need treatment. The Alcohol and Drug Program 
is much more voluntary. It's preventive in nature. And we need 
to reconcile those differences in philosophy and approaches 
before we really look at the consolidation. 

We do need to develop programs that deal with the 
overlapping populations . 

SENATOR AYALA: You're not overly enthusiastic about 
the possibility of merging the two programs? 

DR. MAYBERG: To be honest with you, I think that 
there are some merits in that, but I have a very ambitious 



agenda to accomplish, and that I need to spend all my energy 
making sure that the under-served mental health population gets 
that. And I really don't want to get locked into turf battles 
with anybody. I'm very, very proud of our mental health 
constituency who have spoken with one voice, and that you don't 
find that in-fighting anymore among our group, and that I don't 
— I want to encourage the direction we're going and not get 
side tracked. 

SENATOR AY ALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Thompson. 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

I came down here this afternoon to speak on behalf of 
Dr . Mayberg . 

I want to emphasize that he didn't ask me to come. I 
don't even think he knew I was coming. 

I've had an opportunity to work with him now since 
he's been appointed in two roles: one as the Chairman of 
Subcommittee 3 in the Budget Committee that deals with Health 
and Human Services; and also as someone who has a hospital right 
in my home town, Napa State Hospital over in the Napa Valley. 
And we had some problems there. I called on him, and I called 
on his office. And not only has he worked with me, but he's 
gone as far as to meet me there at that hospital. Together, 
we've toured the facility. We've worked on specific problems, 
and the outcome has been absolutely fantastic . 

I can't think of another individual who I have 
contact with in my role on the Budget Committee that is as 
committed, as sincere, and as helpful and dedicated as this man. 



8 

I just wanted to come down from the Health Committee 
this afternoon to put in a good word for him, and would hope 
that he would be recommended unanimously for confirmation. 

SENATOR AYALA: Senator, you mentioned Napa County. 
It's not the Veterans' Hospital? 

SENATOR THOMPSON: No, this is the Napa State 
Hospital. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Is there anyone here in support or opposition? Then 
do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Craven moves that Stephen 
Mayberg's confirmation as Director of Mental Health be 
recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is five to zero; confirmation is recommended 
to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 



DR. MAYBERG: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointee is Teresa 
Rocha, Warden of the California State Prison, Folsom. 

Ms. Rocha, please come forward and tell us why you 
feel you're qualified to assume this position. 

MS. ROCHA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 
the Committee. 

I'm appearing before you today with an excess of 14 
years of experience within the correctional administration 
field. During those 14 years, I have had an opportunity to 
serve not only within the Department of Corrections, in 
supervisorial and managerial positions, but I've also had an 
opportunity to serve in positions that have given me a chance to 
look at the juvenile justice system. Specifically, I was on the 
Youthful Offender Parole Board as a hearing officer. And I've 
also had a chance to have some experience within the Adult 
Offender Division of the Parole, specifically the Board of 
Prison Terms for some time. 

Additionally, my formal education includes an 
undergraduate degree from the University of California, as well 
as graduate work in public policy also at the University of 
California. 

Most recently, prior to coming to Folsom State 
Prison, I served as the Warden of the Northern California 
Women's Facility in Stockton. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Rocha. 

Are there any questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. Rocha, the capacity is 180 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



10 

percent of capacity? Is that what the prison now is? 

MS. ROCHA: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: How do you deal with that 180 percent 
of capacity at the prison? Have you got modulars out there? 

I guess the Director's here; he could answer it 
probably. 

How do you handle the 180 percent capacity population 
in your jurisdiction? 

MS. ROCHA: Well, each of the — Folsom State 
Prison, while it is a Level II facility, because it was 
constructed over 100 years ago, does have single cell 
construction. And what that means, the 180 percent capacity 
simply means that we have, in almost every cell that we have, 
two inmates . 

And what we do managerial ly is that we take the 
available staff, and as best we can, we attempt to employ those 
individuals. And when I say employment, that also includes 
their attending educational programs, as an example, substance 
abuse programs. We attempt to keep them gainfully employed 
during the regular work day. Not in all cases are they paid, 
however, for that work. 

So, the underpinning of our custodial approach to 
dealing with the inmates is to keep them as occupied as possible 
and gainfully, hopefully, doing some things that will lead to, 
if not their rehabilitation, will cut down on the incidents that 
we have within the institution as long as they're incarcerated 
there . 

SENATOR AYALA: The reason I asked that question is 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



11 

because Folsom is a Class IV security installation. 

MS. ROCHA: No longer, sir. As of August of this 
year, 1993, it has been converted to a Level II facility. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just wondered where do you go with 
these folks. There's only two facilities that you can probably 
contain them, but the classification has been changed at the 
prison? 

MS. ROCHA: Yes, sir, it has. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator Ayala . 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: A few years ago, we had a lot of 
hearings here in this Committee based on very serious charges 
brought to us by inmates, and more particularly, by female staff 
members on sexual harassment and discrimination. And we heard 
complaints from other facilities. Folsom seemed to have the 
worst record at that time, and we had very expensive hearings. 

So, I'm wondering what the situation is there now? 
Have there been complaints in the last year along those lines? 
Has the situation improved? 

MS. ROCHA: Senator, we have had complaints in the 
last year, and I believe the situation has improved. 

One of the things that I believe is critical to 
administering an organization of the size of Folsom — and we 
have in excess of 800 employees — is that you have to have a 
process in place which allows those individuals to freely 
approach the administration, or whomever is going to resolve 
their problems with their administration, free of any fear of 



12 

retaliation. 

The Affirmative Action program which administers the 
EEO office is a separate functioning organization within the 
system, and that system reports directly to the Warden's office; 
in Folsom's case, myself. We have extensive training of 
individuals who can deal with informal complaints out in the 
organization, and then if necessary, or if the complainant so 
desires, we can also go formal, and that would involve an 
investigation, and then finally some adjudication is necessary 
if the seriousness of the offense warranted it. 

In an organization as large as the one that we have, 
with the diverse staff that we have, I think we should always 
reasonably expect that there will be some complainants . I think 
the test for management is the system that we have in place to 
respond to that, the training that we put in place so that 
individuals are aware of what it is they are doing, and the 
responsiveness that we demonstrate to the complainant to resolve 
their problem when we have evidence that the problem is , in 
fact, one that is credible. 

I think that we have made some considerable effort. 
I think I'm proud of the system that we have there now. We 
have, over the last year, had various complaints coming to us 
primarily informal. And in my mind, that's a good sign, because 
that means that people are coming to us more quickly when they 
are encountering behavior that is not acceptable, and that we 
are able to deal with it through counseling, not letting it get 
to the stage where the intensity where the person is so 
debilitated that they need a formal investigation and possibly 



13 

some level of adverse action needs to be taken. 

So, I think that those are the ways in which through 
management I feel that we've made some considerable progress in 
the last year, and I think the system, by and large, is working 
now. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell us a little about the 
training program? How do you go about training people in this 
area? 

MS. ROCHA: The Affirmative Action Office in 
Headquarters has been charged with the responsibility of 
researching not only within state government, but they have also 
researched heavily the federal government, and also the private 
sector, and have obtained information in cooperation from all of 
those parties in putting together an extensive training program. 

The program itself, there's a formal training that 
goes over a period of days, and in some cases weeks. The 
administration is charged with responsibility for selecting 
individuals throughout the institution who represent diversity, 
not only in terms of ethnic and gender, but also in case of a 
24-hour institution, on all the watches. We get those persons 
together — at Folsom we have about 20-25 of those individuals 
— and put them through that training process . There is a 
formal lesson plan. 

We have trainers from Headquarters who are dedicated. 
They are formally trained. This is not something they're doing 
on the side. They are professionals in every sense of the word. 
They make themselves available to the institutions . We put 
people through that training; they are then certified at the end 



14 

of it. 

We also have quarterly meetings, if not more 
frequently, to update them on any emerging issues or any case 
law that has come out in the intervening months. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have training in sexual 
harassment? 

MS. ROCHA: Yes, we do, sir. We have — the 
Department has a very aggressive training program in place. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have the number of complaints been 
reduced as a result of the training? 

MS. ROCHA: I believe the numbers of complaints have 
been reduced. And equally important, I think that the types of 
complaints that we ' re getting are more timely and more serious 
in nature. And that is not to suggest that — any inappropriate 
behavior of the type that sexual harassment represents is simply 
not tolerable. So, I don't want to suggest that I think that 
the complainant may not feel that it's as serious, but what I 
mean is that the duration, typically, of what has gone on, and 
also the numbers of people involved in it has significantly 
dwindled, both in numbers and intensity, and I think that's a 
good sign. 

SENATOR PETRIS: At the time of our hearings, it was 
made pretty clear to us by some very courageous women who came 
forward, there was no guarantee of lack of retaliation. We 
warned the Department and said we don ' t want to hear about any 
retaliation, but you can't guarantee it. 

They complained about the "good ol ' boys club". And 
it was fashionable. It was so blatant, it looked like it was 



15 

encouraged to go after the women. The women felt safer among 
the inmates than they did among their fellow employees, 
especially those who ranked a little bit higher than they did. 

It caused us a great deal of concern. And the 
Department said at the time they would really go to work with 
training programs, and do this and that, but I haven't seen any 
report since then on the reduction of incidents, and so forth. 
Of course, I haven't seen any complaints, either, so maybe that 
is a good sign. 

You're satisfied that the program is working? 

MS. ROCHA: I believe, sir, yes, that the program is 
working. 

SENATOR PETRIS: If a woman today encounters a 
problem, what is the first step she's supposed to take? Is it 
an informal session with you or somebody on your staff? 

MS. ROCHA: A person today encountering a problem has 
a — continues to have a variety of options available to them. 
They can take an — they can file an informal complaint, in 
which case they would deal with an EEO counselor that they 
select, someone of those 20 or 25 who they feel comfortable 
with, and they can have it informally resolved. And what that 
would mean, if I were a counselor and someone came to me and 
reported something, at that point I could then meet with the 
person whom they felt had committed the offense and attempt to 
deal with it informally. And the complainant has input as to 
whether or not that ' s the level at which they want it to be 
dealt with. That's one option. 

Another, a second option, would be that they could 



16 

come and say no, that they feel that it's been going on for some 
time, or that they feel it's a particularly offensive thing, and 
that the person whom they are accusing might possibly deserve 
some level of adverse action. If that's the case, then we take 
it immediately to the formal level . 

And we do not do investigations internally. Once we 
have a formal complaint, our Affirmative Action Coordinator 
takes that complaint to Headquarters, and we get an investigator 
from outside of the institution, so that we have not only the 
perception but the reality of an objective, intensive 
investigation that then occurs, and we attempt to do that in as 
timely a fashion as possible. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that a change from past practice? 

MS. ROCHA: I think it's difficult — I'm not 
absolutely sure from what point in time you are measuring a 
change from past practice. So long as I have been at Folsom, 
which is the past year, that has been the practice that we have 
had in place there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm thinking four or five 
years . 

MS. ROCHA: It's definitely a change from four or 
five years ago. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm happy to hear that. 

Let me go on to a couple other areas . We see the 
statistics time and time again about the correlation between 
incarceration at a state prison and the lack of education. A 
lot of illiterates in the prisons. They're dropouts. You know 
the story. 



17 

We've tried to have a program to offer opportunities 
to make inmates literate before they go out again. I assume you 
have such a program at Folsom? 

MS. ROCHA: Yes, sir, we do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you comment on it? 

MS. ROCHA: The literacy program, which if course is 
a result of a legislative mandate, is one that we take very 
seriously at Folsom. 

One of the things that we are doing now is very 
aggressively reorganizing, and it does take some time, because 
we have to take existing staff. And they were, of course, hired 
with certain expertise, but our emphasis is very definitely in 
the area of literacy now. 

In addition to the professional staff, we have 51 
educators on the staff at Folsom Prison. In addition to the 
professional staff, some of whom have particular emphasis in 
literacy, we are also recruiting very aggressively volunteers 
from the community who come in, as well as we are taking 
advantage of the VISTA program, which is a federal program 
that allows employees to be paid through the federal system and 
who come in and are additionally organizing volunteers who are 
coming in. And a part of that program is not only individuals 
from the outside, but the recruitment of inmates who have 
reached a certain literacy level — in the case of the 
legislation, it's mandated to be over 9th grade — and who are, 
on a volunteer basis, tutoring other inmates on a one-to-one. 

We also have a computer-assisted literacy program, so 
we have been successful in getting additional funds. In some 



18 

cases, that's federal funding to get personal computers — not 
personally for the inmates, but into our lab, PCs, 
free-standing. We have software that accommodates the literacy 
emphasis . 

So I think, again, there's an area that we've made 
some considerable progress, and, of course, we have a way to go 
with that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: To go back to the prior subject, I 
heard on the news, I guess last night, about the judgment in a 
San Quentin case, over a million dollars on sexual harassment. 
I don't know any of the facts; I haven't seen the printed story. 

I suppose if that came to trial, you now, this past 
week, it's probably a very old case. It takes a while for those 
to work their way through. 

Are you familiar with that case? 

MS. ROCHA: I'm sorry, I'm not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm glad it wasn't Folsom. 

MS. ROCHA: Yes, sir, so am I. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have another question. 

I represent an area, a district, that has four state 
institutions within a school district, by the way. And it's 
contiguous to the fifth one. 

We continually hear about the drug and alcohol abuse 
within the prison. Is this happening at Folsom? And if so, 
what are you doing about it? 



19 

MS. ROCHA: I would venture that that probably is 
happening within most, if not all, state prisons. 

And I think that it has historically presented a 
challenge to the administration. It currently does, and it 
probably will in the foreseeable future. 

We are — we have all manner of attempts to reduce 
the level of illicit drugs and/or any kind of substance abuse 
within the correctional facility. And we have to assume, for 
the most part, since they're not manufacturing it inside, that 
it's coming in from the outside. And so, we do have programs in 
place, and we are, of course, constrained by regulations and by 
laws as to how aggressive we can be in that search. But we do 
routinely search, and we do, of course, have prior clearance, 
security clearances of visitors, inmates, and that type of 
thing. And that's really the primary way that we have to stop 
the stream of illicit drugs and/or any other substances into 
the institution. 

SENATOR AYALA: The problem is not that great? It's 
just the perception that there's a lot of alcohol and drug use 
with the prison inmates. That's not the case? It's not that 
great a problem as we're told out in the streets? 

MS. ROCHA: From a correctional administrator 
perspective, any amount of drugs or illicit substances are too 
great of an amount. 

I'm not sure as to the specifics, and I'm not 
familiar with what kind of perception there may be in your 
particular area. 

But I think, as anything else, when there is an 



20 

incident, and that incident is brought to the attention of the 
outside world, typically through the media, that there tends to 
be a focus on that subject. And I think that's a fair thing to 
be happening. I think that our consciousness and our focus 
should continue to be on those problem areas . 

I suspect that there may be more of a perception 
about that than there is, in fact, in reality. 

But I can just assure you that so long as there is 
any of that, you're going to aggressively pursue ways to 
eliminate it. 

SENATOR AYALA: You don't have any specific programs 
in place to look into that area of drug and alcohol abuse within 
the prison? 

MS. ROCHA: The entire custodial system is at work, 
constantly searching for that type of illicit activity. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 

Anyone in the audience here to testify in favor or 
opposition? 

Bishop Ralph. 

MR. RALPH: Thank you. We have a little session 
afterwards . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, it's good to see you with us. 

MR. RALPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be 
with you and all of the Members of this Committee. 

Little did I realize when I grew up that I would have 
Senator Beverly as my Senator, but that's a pleasure. 

Mr . Chairman and Members , thank you for the courtesy 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



21 

to allow me to appear before your Committee. I'm here 
representing the Association of Black Correctional Workers, and 
we do support this appointment . And we don ' t take that support 
lightly. 

This year, what I did was, I sent out memos 
requesting any feedback from the various chapters and their 
members who work with these Wardens who are before you today. 
And in all of the instances, I'm happy to report, the membership 
of our Association, at least, it's an employee association, they 
were very favorable in their responses; meaning that the Wardens 
are working with them and listening to complaints. So, I think 
the system appears to be working very well. 

So, I'm here to support her, and the other two 
candidates who have been nominated by the Governor. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Bishop. Your 
opinion is very important to us, as well as that of the 
organization you're representing. 

Any questions? Thank you. 

MR. RALPH: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves the 
recommendation of Teresa Rocha be made to the Senate Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 



22 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is four to zero; confirmation is recommended 
to the Floor. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. ROCHA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is Warden, 
California State Prison, Kings County at Corcoran, Department of 
Corrections, George A. Smith. 

Mr. Smith, please come forward. We'll ask you as 
well why you feel you're qualified to assume this position? 

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of 
the Committee, I have been serving as the acting Warden and 
appointed Warden at Corcoran since May 1st, 1992. 

I began my career with the Department of Corrections 
in 1971 at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad. I 
promoted through the ranks at Soledad to Sergeant of 
Correctional Programs Supervisor II and Lieutenant. In 1980, I 
promoted to the California Correctional Center at Susanville as 
a Correctional Program Supervisor III. I transferred in 1982 to 
Sierra Conservation Center and Deuel Vocational Institution, and 
promoted again back to Soledad in 1983 as a Correctional 
Captain. 

While at Soledad, I promoted to Program Administrator 
in 1984, Correctional Administrator in 1986, and in 1988 I went 



23 

to Corcoran as the first Chief Deputy Warden, where I served 
until I assumed my responsibilities as the Acting Warden in May 
of '92. 

In the last year and a half at Corcoran, we've 
accomplished a great deal. The most outstanding accomplishment, 
I would imagine, is that our acute care hospital was dedicated 
October 21st, 1993; a 75-bed fully licensed acute care hospital. 

We have developed a literacy program utilizing inmate 
tutors, which we began in December of '92. We have trained 135 
inmate tutors, each one teaching from two to three inmates on 
their own time, after their own work hours. We have also 
trained 15 staff members. 

We have an expanded PIA program, Project 2000, which 
will make modular systems for the Department and other state 
agencies . 

We have a record of harmonious relationships at 
Corcoran that I believe will stand with anyone. 

I'm married. My wife has followed me through all of 
this career throughout the state. I have five children, 
grandchildren, and a great-granddaughter. 

We're very proud of our institution and our staff, 
and I believe I can continue to do an excellent job as a Warden 
there . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Smith, aside from the 
overcrowding that we face in California prisons, what are the 
most pressing problems facing us in the next five years in terms 



24 

of the prison system in California? 

MR. SMITH: Well, of course, the population is 
growing, Senator. 

However, Corrections today is not like Corrections 
was even ten years ago. It's become a much more complex 
operation. Of course, we have 32,000 employees. We have 
positions in Corrections now that weren't even heard of ten 
years ago . 

We have to learn to change some of the ways we've 
done business in the past. And I think the impact of Americans 
with Disabilities Act, the impact of EEO, the impact of our 
Medical Services Division, tuberculosis, AIDS, all of these 
things contribute to more important things than just 
overcrowding alone . 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator Ayala. 

Any other questions? 

Is there anyone here to testify in either support or 
opposition? Bishop Ralph indicated, yes, please come forward. 

MR. RALPH: Senator Roberti, maybe I should place 
myself on a track and glide back. 

Thank you so much for your courtesy again. 

There is a group of members form the Association that 
I represent that came up with Mr. Smith. The President of that, 
I guess it's the Central Valley Chapter, called me at one of my 
offices in L.A. and indicated that they very strongly supported 
Mr. Smith because of his interaction with members of our 
Association and his concerns and commitment to fair treatment in 



25 

terms of promotion, and relating to those people. 

So, they are here. A large contingent of them drove 
up with him, which is a pretty unusual testimony. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. Why don't we have them 
stand to indicate their support and raise your hands . The whole 
audience. 

You're not so bad, Mr. Smith. 

MR. RALPH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR AYALA: I want to shake your hand. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please come forward. 

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you kindly for this invitation 
to speak before the Committee today. 

I'd like to say that my name is Ilene Williams, and I 
am second in command at the Corcoran State Prison. And I went 
up for endorsement through the Director's office as Mr. Smith's 
candidate of choice. 

I sit here before you today, and I'd like to say to 
you that I began my career in the Department of Corrections in 
1967. And I feel that I am very much qualified to speak on 
Mr. Smith's behalf in the way that he has treated his staff at 
Corcoran State Prison. 

I have worn two hats at that Prison now for about 
five years as the Affirmative Action/Equal Employment 
Opportunity Coordinator for the institution. And our figures 
there are outstandingly sound, as I would put it, in that for 
the last five years that I have been the AA/EEO Coordinator, we 
have had complaints in that prison; however, every decision that 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 

we have made, we have acted quite readily at Mr. Smith's 
direction. And we have acted very quickly, and any complaints 
that we have had in that prison have been ruled that Corcoran 
State Prison has done the right thing, acted in an expedient 
manner and dealt with the problem. 

So, I'd like to say that on behalf of the people that 
came up with me, these are the fortunate ones that were able to 
get a ticket on the bus that we rented, free of all — on our 
own expense, to come here. I speak for them and the other 1500 
and some that were unable to come. They asked that I let you 
know that we are very pleased with Mr. Smith. We're very proud 
of Mr. Smith. He's a smart man. He's an intelligent leader, 
and we learn a lot. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: These seem to be going a lot 
easier than other past Wardens' confirmations. 

Is there anyone here in opposition? 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: I want to speak on behalf of 
Mr. Smith. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please come forward. 

MR. WELTON: Good afternoon, Committee. My name is 
Officer Welton. 

I've been at Corcoran since March of 1988, and I 
worked for this man for quite sometime. And it's been numerous 
occasions that I had to go speak to him in his office on things 
that we had that we figured there was a problem there. And he 
was able to resolve them very quickly and swiftly. 

By me being a minority officer, he dealt with 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



27 

affirmative action situations, I felt, very appropriately. And 
he has been sincere. He has been like a confidant to us . He's 
more like a father figure to us as far as the staff members that 
I have spoke with and myself, that know of him. 

And that's basically what I have to say. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Officer. 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: So move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves — 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to move the nomination of 
this wonderful man. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Okay, Senator Ayala moves. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Ayala moves confirmation 
of George Smith be recommended as Warden of Kings County at 
Corcoran. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is four to zero; confirmation is recommended 
to the Floor. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



28 

Congratulations . 

MR. SMITH: Thank you very much, Senators. 
[Thereupon the Senate Rules 
Committee acted upon other 
agenda items . ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Now we have the appointment of 
Theo White, Warden of the California State Prison at Sacramento, 
Department of Corrections. 

Mr. White, we'll ask you what we asked the other two 
Wardens, and that is why you feel you are qualified to assume 
this position? 

MR. WHITE: Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear 
before you today. 

I have 2 9 -plus years in the Department of 
Corrections, working in a variety of institutions and a variety 
of positions. My last position prior to my current assignment 
was as Warden at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe. 

I have a Bachelor's Degree in education from the 
California State University at Long Beach, a Master's of Arts 
Degree from Chapman College in Orange, and a Master's of Science 
Degree from the California State University at Fullerton. 

Prisons today require an administrator with a diverse 
background, and I feel that I have that background. Even though 
the primary function of prisons is to retain those who are 
admitted by the courts in a secure manner, there are many other 
things that must take place also to ensure that the institution 
runs smoothly. I would like to cover some of these things, if I 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



29 



may. 

Academic and vocational education, religious 
programs, Narcotics Anonymous, and Alcoholics Anonymous, and 
victims' programs. Our education program at CSP, Sacramento 
offers classes from ABE level 1 through 3; GED prep; GED; high 
school, and English as a second language. 

Our vocational program offers 15 different vocations. 
All of those lead to certification. 

In April of '93, the Granite Adult School was granted 
the maximum 6-year accreditation from the Western Association of 
Schools and Colleges. This accreditation is only given to the 
schools that are in full compliance, and we got the full maximum 
six years. 

We have a very active PIA program, and they offer 
lots of trades in that particular area. 

In compliance with Proposition 139, we have a very 
active joint venture program. Last year, we donated $21,000 to 
the victims' programs. In addition, we also donated 100 quilts 
through the Child Protective Services to the youth in the 
Sacramento area. 

We also have a very active Arts in Corrections 
program that offers programs in drawing, music, and writing. We 
feel that the arts teach self-esteem. 

These are just a few of the things that are taking 
place at Sacramento State — at California State Prison, 
Sacramento. The operation is running well, and I feel with your 
support, it will continue to do so. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



30 

Is there anyone here in support? Please come 
forward. 

MR. RALPH: This is my last time today. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, again, we are here. I'm 
here representing the Association of Black Correctional Workers, 
and we endorse and support this nomination of the Governor for 
confirmation . 

He, too, has, from all that we have learned in 
garnering, trying to garner from our membership as much as we 
can, any comments, feedback has been very positive. 

In closing, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman and 
Members, as a former Member of this body, there have been times 
in the past when I've been concerned about some things that have 
occurred, but I think this process of confirmation of 
gubernatorial appointees really is a very healthy process. It 
enables those who work under gubernatorial appointees an 
opportunity to voice any abuses, or any concerns, any lack of 
sensitivity. I'm very happy that we don't have any to report in 
this case, but I really applaud you and your leadership, and the 
Members of this Committee, in the direction and the way that 
you've conducted this process. I think it makes all of us feel 
a little better at night. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Bishop, and I 
appreciate your words, especially in that regard because I 
really do feel that the confirmation process has helped us bring 
to the front problems that would exist in state prisons probably 
regardless of wherever they were located. It helps us come up 
with administrators who can address those problems. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



31 

So, I appreciate your remarks. 

MR. RALPH: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. White, where is this Sacramento 
facility and when was it opened? 

MR. WHITE: Actually, it was opened in '86. It 
previously was New Folsom. It's adjacent to the old prison. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So it's actually at Folsom? 

MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But it's called Sacramento. 

MR. WHITE: Yes, Sacramento. California State 
Prison, Sacramento. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it in Sacramento, or is it in 



Folsom? 



Folsom. 



site now. 



MR. WHITE: It's in Sacramento County. 

SENATOR PETRIS: County, okay. 

MS. MICHEL: They split Folsom: Old Folsom and New 

MR. WHITE: Yes. CSP, Sacramento, is the Level IV 



SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 

Support, please come forward. 

MS. KIRSHNER: I'm Cynthia Kirshner, and I spoke to 
this panel two years ago, when Mr. Gomez was confirmed. 

I'm here to tell the panel that Folsom has improved 
100 percent. With the appointment of Teresa Rocha, it gave them 
a big shot in the arm because — they didn't even like the women 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



32 

there, let alone have the Warden be one. So, I'm in support of 
her, also. 

Theo White worked at Folsom, and he had quite a good 
reputation before he left. He went down and he worked at 
Blythe, and everybody was so happy to have him come back. And I 
didn't have the opportunity to meet him in his first time 
around, but I had the opportunity to meet him after he was 
appointed as the Warden at the prison. 

Theo White is a very — he — I don't know. When you 
walk in the Admin. Building, it's, oh gosh, how can I say it? 
People are happier there, you know. It's an open, friendly 
place. I know if I had the same problem I had three years ago, 
that I could go and talk to him or Ms. Rocha, and it wouldn't 
have gone on for the period of time that it did go on. 

That car, the good ol ' boys and the Untouchables, 
hey, they cease to exist. They're gone. Now we have an 
administration that are people, just like us. They're no 
better; we're a team. And I see that team work as each day goes 
by. 

We have a new Chapter President at Folsom Prison, and 
I think that that ' s going to be a plus to keep the 
administration and our union building as a family also. 

You've made a good choice, and I'm so happy that 
Teresa was confirmed, and I hope that you confirm Mr. White 
also. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. It's good to 
hear from you. 

Is there anyone here in support or in opposition? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



33 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves confirmation 
be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 
SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is four to zero; confirmation is recommended 
to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. WHITE: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:02 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



34 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

j* IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



& 



this Cj^ day of January, 1994. 



JVELYN'J. MIZAK <J 
Shorthand Reporter 



242-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 242-R when ordering. 



)0 

3 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS OEPT. 

FEB 2 3 1994 

SAN FR** C ifLv 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1994 
3:05 P.M. 



243-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1994 
3:05 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

SANDRA R. SMOLEY, Secretary 
Health and Welfare Agency 

S. KIM BELSHE, Director 
Department of Health Services 

BRAD GILBERT, President 

California Conference of Local Health Officers 

LAURIE McBRIDE, Executive Director 
Life AIDS Lobby 

BETH CAPELL 

California Nurses Association 

JOHN DUNN-MORTIMER 

AIDS Project Los Angeles 

KEN MSEMAJI 

United Domestic Workers of America 

STEVEN THOMPSON 

California Medical Association 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued^ 



DENNIS FLATT 
Kaiser Permanente 



ROBERT MARSHALL, Chief Executive Officer 
California Pharmacists Association 

E.B. (Soap) Dowell, Member 

Major Risk Medical Insurance Board 

DOUG HITCHCOCK, Executive Vice President 

California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems 

JAMES W. MORGAN, Government Relations Manager 
CIBA Pharmaceuticals 

BOBBI FIEDLER, Member 

California State Lottery Commission 

JULIAN M. MARQUEZ, Warden 
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 
California Department of Corrections 

JEFF THOMPSON 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

SPEAKER WILLIE BROWN 

SENATOR PAT JOHNSTON 

WILLIAM HAUCK, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

JOAN OTOMO-CORGEL, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

ROSEMARY E. THAKAR, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

WILLIAM D. CRIST, Chairman 

Political Action Legislative Committee 

California Faculty Association 

JOHN T. KNOX, Member 
Board of Directors 
Hastings College of the Law 

ANA M. OLIVAREZ, Warden 
Deuel Vocational Institution 
California Department of Corrections 



IV 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

JIM WARE 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

ANA MARIA ORTEGA, Former Employee 
Department of Finance 



V 



INDEX 
Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 



SANDRA R. SMOLEY, Secretary 

Health and Welfare Agency 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Medical Program in Place after 

Earthquake in Northridge 1 

Fewer Beds after Earthquake 2 

Possbility of Mobile Medical Units 3 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Governor's Proposed Cuts to AFDC Grants .... 4 

Prospects of Job Placement in GAIN 7 

Governor's Health Care Policy 8 

Single Payer Health Coverage 10 

Realignment 11 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Criticism that Realignment Puts Local 

Governments at Risk 12 

Motion to Confirm 14 

Motion to Put Over Confirmation 14 

Discussion 14 

S. KIM BELSHE, Director 

Department of Health Services 18 

Background and Experience 18 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Universal Health Care Coverage 22 



VI 



INDEX (Continued) 

Policies in Holding Pattern, awaiting 

Clinton Health Plan 24 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Back-up Plan for Universal Health Care 

Coverage 25 

Request to Reconsider Singer Payer Idea .... 28 

Transfer of Prop. 99 Funds 30 

Cut in Budget for Department of Health 

Services Employees Working on Tobacco Control . 33 

Witnesses in Suppor: 

DR. BRAD GILBERT, President 

California Conference of Local Health Officers ... 33 

LAURIE McBRIDE, Executive Director 

Life AIDS Lobby 35 

BETH CAPELL 

California Nurses Association 36 

JOHN DUNN-MORTIMER 

AIDS Project Los Angeles 36 

KEN MSEMAJI 

United Domestic Workers of America 37 

STEVE THOMPSON 

California Medical Association 39 

DENNIS FLATT 

Kaiser Permanente 4 

BOB MARSHALL, Chief Executive Officer 

California Pharmacists Association 41 

SOAP DOWELL, Member 

Major Rick Medical Insurance Board 41 

DOUG HITCHCOCK, Executive Vice President 

California Association of Hospitals and 

Health Systems 42 

JIM MORGAN, Government Relations Manager 

CIBA Pharmaceuticals 42 

Motion to Put Over Confirmation 4 3 



Vll 



INDEX (Continued^ 

BOBBIE FIEDLER, Member 

California State Lottery 43 

Background and Experience 44 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Type of Leadership Needed by Lottery 

Commission 45 

Support for More Lottery Funds Going to 

Education 4 6 

Motion to Confirm 4 6 

Committee Action 4 7 

JULIAN S. MARQUEZ, Warden 

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 

California Department of Corrections 47 

Background and Experience 47 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Drug Problems within Institution 48 

Ability to Apprehend Visitors Suspected 

of Carrying Drugs 50 

Witness in Neutrality: 

JEFF THOMPSON 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . 50 

Formal Grievance 51 

Attempt to Prejudice Judicial Hearing 51 

Possible Discipline of Officers Who Wrote 

Letters of Character Reference 52 

Possibility of Retaliation for Filing of 

Formal Grievance 54 

Response by MR. MARQUEZ 54 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Need to Investigate Allegations 55 

Put Over Nomination for One Week 5 6 



Vlll 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Witness in Support; 

FRANK SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 56 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Need to Put over Confirmation 57 

Trustees of the California State University 
[Taken Together]: 

WILLIAM HAUCK 5 8 

Witnesses in Support (HAUCK) : 

HONORABLE WILLIE BROWN 

Speaker, California State Assembly 58 

SENATOR PAT JOHNSTON 61 

Background and Experience 61 

JOAN OTOMO-CORGEL 6 3 

Background and Experience 6 3 

ROSEMARY THAKAR 64 

Background and Experience 64 

Witness in Support of All Three: 

BILL CRIST, Chairman 

Political Action Legislative Committee 

California Faculty Association 66 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Student Fee Increases 6 8 

Response by MS. OTOMO-CORGEL 6 8 

Response by MR. HAUCK 69 

Response by MS. THAKAR 7 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Need to Help Governor Meet Problems of 

Financing Higher Education 71 



IX 

INDEX (Continued^ 
Impact of Increased Student Fees 7 2 

Statement by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Appreciation for Remarks of SENATOR PETRIS ... 74 
Invitation to Visit San Marcus Campus 75 

Statement by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Need to Put Rebuilding of Northridge 

Campus at Top Priority 7 6 

Motion to Confirm All Three Appointees 7 7 

Committee Action 7 7 

JOHN T. KNOX, Member 

Board of Directors 

Hastings College of Law 77 

Background and Experience 7 8 

Motion to Confirm 79 

Committee Action 7 9 

ANA M. OLIVAREZ, Warden 

Deuel Vocational Institution 

California Department of Corrections 80 

Background and Experience 80 

Witnesses in Support: 

FRANK SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 80 

JIM WARE 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 81 

Witness in Opposition: 

ANA MARIA ORTEGA, Former Employee 

Department of Finance 82 

Superior Court Decision re: Racial and 

Sexual Harassment 82 

Receipt of Adverse Action 82 

Background on Harassment Case 83 



INDEX (Continued) 

Senate Rules Request for Investigation 

in April, 1985 84 

Antonio Aguilar's Request to File Charges ... 85 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Number of Persons Named in Sexual 

Harassment Filings 87 

Court's Findings 87 

Response by MS. OLIVAREZ 88 

Unwitnessed Situations of Alleged 

Harassment 89 

Advice to Keep Journal or Diary of 

Occurrences 89 

Falsification of Application for 

State Service 89 

Unsuccessful Appeal to SPB on 

Termination from Department of Finance . . 90 

Testimony in Support of Witness 

before Administrative Law Judge 91 

No Official Contact with Witness 

since 1982 91 

Statement by SENATOR AYALA re: Proper 

Forum for Personnel Discussion 91 

Response by MS. ORTEGA 92 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Quarrel Is Not with MS. OLIVAREZ 93 

Concluding Remarks by MS. OLIVAREZ 94 

Motion to Confirm 94 

Committee Action 95 

Termination of Proceedings 95 

Certificate of Reporter 96 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Sandra Smoley, Governor's 
appointee for Secretary of Health and Welfare Agency, has flown 
up here today from Los Angeles due to the earthquake and has to 
get back. 

So, why don't you come forward and we'll take you up. 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you very much. Hello again. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Again. You've been here within a 
year on your former position. 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes, right. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll ask you the same question, 
why you feel you're qualified to assume this position? 

MS. SMOLEY: Well, I'm a registered nurse by 
profession, and I've been interested in health and welfare 
issues all the time that I was on the Sacramento County Board of 
Supervisors for 20 years and administered the state programs in 
health and welfare. 

And so, I feel that I am eminently qualified because 
of an understanding of the whole programs, and the budgeting, 
and the relationship between state and local government. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions of Ms . Smoley? 

Let me ask you, since I know your current line of 
duty is with the devastating earthquake in the San Fernando 
Valley and general areas, can you just roughly tell me what is 
the medical program that has been put into place? I've been 
into parts of my district, and it's just one thing they're very, 



very concerned about are the lack of pharmaceuticals being 
available, among -- 

MS. SMOLEY: Among so many. 

It's been just an unbelievable situation. We had 14 
health facilities, including hospitals, that were affected. 
I've been down there on the spot with the people from OSHPAD, 
Office of Statewide Health Planning, and Department of Health 
Services so that we could cut through the red tape and get them 
some changes that they needed to do. 

We've been very, very successful in that, and I think 
the hospitals and facilities are very, very happy with what 
we've done. We've had Holy Cross now is up and running, and I 
understand in the pharmaceutical area, because I first-hand saw 
pharmaceuticals all over the floor, pharmacy companies are very, 
very good about giving them — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Replenishing it. 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes, replenishing it. 

There are still a lot of things. That's why I feel I 
need to be down there so that we can immediately, on the spot. 
But things are moving well. Unbelievable stories. Doctors, 
nurses, just working like crazy under unbelievable conditions. 

And things are getting back together, and we're kind 
of just being as supportive as we possibly can. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How many fewer beds do we have 
now? 

MS. SMOLEY: Well, St. John's is totally closed down. 
There still seem to be ample beds. That really is not an issue 
right now. 



They sent a lot of people home. Like newborn babies 
with mothers up to four hours' old, they sent them home. They 
dismissed every patient that they could. Sent some to skilled 
nursing facilities; sent some to other hospital facilities. 

I have, Senator, in the works right now a complete -- 
what we've done; what our plan is for the future. I plan to 
send it to you and all the people that represent that area to 
keep you abreast of exactly what we're doing at every time. 

And, you know, if you have suggestions, or want us to 
do something, I'm more than willing to do that. 

That is in the typewriter as we speak, so that you 
will have a complete understanding of what's happened. I get a 
daily update from OSHPAD as far as what the facilities are, what 
their needs are, and we're doing very fast response to that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

There's some areas where the people don't have, 
because of the earthquake or because of economic circumstances, 
don't have access to transportation. Maybe if we could create a 
methodology where we could bring the units to them, if it's 
possible . 

MS. SMOLEY: A mobile unit. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mobile units, yes. It might not 
be so bad, at least in these next couple of weeks. 

MS. SMOLEY: You know, one of the things that 
happened were, the doctors' offices around hospitals don't have 
the same earthquake standards, and they were really trashed with 
a lot of the records. So what we've done is, assign rooms in 
the hospital for the doctors to see patients in the hospital. 



4 

That took a special dispensation. 

So, we're trying to make things work under those 
circumstances, but that's a good suggestion. I'll look into 
that and get right back to you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Thank you very much. 

MS. SMOLEY: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Hi, welcome. 

MS. SMOLEY: Hello. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's good to see you again. 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have some questions in a couple of 
areas . 

MS. SMOLEY: Okay. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The Governor, I think, deserves a 
tremendous amount of praise for his prevention. His emphasis in 
his very first year was programs of prevention, hence the 
preschool stuff and the school thing — 

MS. SMOLEY: Healthy Start. 

SENATOR PETRIS: -- Healthy Start and so forth. 

But it presents kind of an ironic dilemma for me 
because, on the other hand, he's had a lot of cuts to the AFDC 
program, and this year he's proposing more. That hits the same 
people he ' s trying to help with these other programs . 

If the current recommendations of the Governor are 
adopted and the cuts are made, a family of three in that 
situation will have only 57 percent of the purchasing power they 
had in 1989-90. That seems to be working at cross purposes with 



ourselves. To me, it just doesn't seem the right way to go. 

Would you comment on that? 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes. First of all, I would like to say 
that California is very high as far as the dollar amount that we 
have in grants. We are presently 4th. If we make a 10 percent 
cut, that would put us at 9th. If the other 15 percent goes in 
after the six months, we would still be at 12th in the nation as 
far as the level of allocation is concerned. 

What we have also done is put more money into the 
GAIN program, which is the job training program for welfare 
people. And what we are seeing is that if we're really active 
in GAIN and do public-private partnerships as far as developing 
programs for getting people back at work, what we're seeing is, 
if we train them and we are now -- last year, you know, you put 
into effect some wonderful things in AFDC where they can keep 
some of the money if they work on the side, where before, they 
would lose that. We also allow them to have more equity in a 
car, and also day care is being taken care of for working moms. 

So, we think that it will be offset by what they're 
able to keep with a job, and that will make up for the 
difference in the grant. 

I think the Governor's philosophy is to say that 
welfare should not be a lifetime thing; that our side of it is 
to get people trained and find the jobs for them, but the 
recipients' side is for them also to go back to work. And we're 
talking able-bodied, not anybody -- you know, no children's 
services and not anybody that is in any way infirmed or 
disabled. 



SENATOR PETRIS: Well, that's all very well. It just 
kind of echoes the same thing we've been saying for years: get 
these people back to work. 

In a recession, they're the least able to get a job 
because there are other people who have a longer record of job 
experience waiting in line ahead of them. 

In the meantime, in spite of the figures you quote, 
we do know that, take children under the age of 18 in 
California, 25 percent of them now live below the poverty level. 
Just three years ago, it was at 15 percent. That figure is 
growing. 

And all the reports that we've had on children make 
us ashamed of how we've neglected our children: how many are in 
poverty; how many are in other problems. 

Cutting into grants, even though some of it might be 
made up, just seems to me kind of a cruel way to go. 

Now, if you rank us on a national scale, we also have 
to show what our living expenses are. Sure, we might be pretty 
high in the amount on the scale, but it costs more to live here. 
Everything costs more. I was reminded the other day that in San 
Francisco, we have the highest paid cabbies in the country, 
including New York. 

MS. SMOLEY: Really? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, they make more money in San 
Francisco. Everybody makes more money here, but they all spend 
more money, too, just to stay alive, you know. 

So, I'm not persuaded by the national listing. It 
doesn't always give us the full picture. 



But you are talking about training and jobs. What 
are the realistic prospects of job placement? 

MS. SMOLEY: I'll tell you, some of the GAIN stories 
are really fabulous. They have a wonderful one in Riverside, 
where the people actually go out and find five job 
opportunities, come back and share them. And it's really almost 
like a contest, and they really are working hard at it. 

It's extremely successful. Their whole MO is that 
working pays; getting a job is good. They've been extremely 
successful . 

I'd like to take that program to all GAIN programs 
because of its success. 

And we feel that with that success, and they've 
gotten jobs and kept the jobs, that that will offset the cuts in 
the grants . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have any numbers to show us 
from that particular project? 

MS. SMOLEY: I could send them to you, and I ' d be 
glad to do that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Either numbers or percentage of 
those who when through and managed to get a job, and kept it for 
whatever period of time. 

MS. SMOLEY: Glad to do that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm still bothered by the fact that 
with the recession and the earthquake, where you've been working 
so valiantly since it happened -- 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I commend you for that. 



8 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It seems to have a double whammy 
impact on the victims. And if we cut AFDC, we also get less 
federal money coming in. 

MS. SMOLEY: That's corrected. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has that been corrected? 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes, that does not -- that money has run 
out, so that's not an issue here. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We're not getting it anyway. 

MS. SMOLEY: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Poor way to resolve that issue; 
isn ' t it . 

Let me turn to health care. Are you going to be 
playing a role in advising the Governor on health care? 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes, I am. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm puzzled by the Governor's policy 
on health care. 

We had a pretty good bill last year by Senator 
Torres, SB 6 . It was vetoed. A lot of the elements in SB 6 are 
being used in the Clinton proposal. The Governor is opposed to 
the Clinton proposal. 

I had a bill, a single pay, which I think is the 
greatest health care bill that's come down the pike. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which he commented on early on and 
said: if that kind of bill gets to my desk, I veto it. 
Automatically lost all the Republicans votes I had, which was 
about zero to begin with, but anyway, that firmed them up. 



So, we don't have a universal health care program 
coming from the Governor. The only thing I've seen from the 
Governor is reaction to other plans that he didn't like. I 
don't see him coming forward and having our state try to add 
whatever we can add to solving the overall health care problem. 

Now, does that mean he's waiting to see what happens 
with Congress with the major proposal of the President, or is he 
preparing some other plan? And if so, are you going to be 
helping him with it? 

MS. SMOLEY: First of all, there are some parts of 
the Clinton plan that the Governor does like: pooling 
mechanisms. He likes the tort reform aspects. There are a lot 
of parts, and he has congratulated the President many times on 
bringing this matter forward so that it ' s a public debate. So, 
there are some parts of it. 

His concern in the Clinton plan is the employer 
mandate, the concern being that we already have so many 
pressures on small businesses, who are the ones that make up or 
create about 80 percent of the jobs in the State of California. 
And all he's saying is, if he goes out — and we're working with 
Red Teams to try to retain businesses here, go outside the state 
and bring businesses here, then if we put an employer mandate on 
them, it could be the death knell to put them out of business. 

His number one issue is jobs, because if somebody has 
a job, they have a shot at being able to afford better health 
care . 

We are moving Medi-Cal patients into managed care. 
That's one of the proposals. And many of the things that we 



10 

have done, like HIPC, Health Insurance Plan of California, is 
something that the federal government is really looking at. I 
feel that we're quite ahead in many instances, managed care 
being one, HIPC being another, that the federal government is 
looking at as a possibility for direction to go. 

But I will be involved with that. We have a 
committee already looking at the Clinton health plan, analyzing 
it as to its effect on California. I would say this: the 
possibility of some job loss could be a problem. They were 
saying in one report 80,000 jobs in California. And the 
employer mandate are the two things he continues to show 
concern, but he has not taken the position to say, "I'm opposed 
to the whole Clinton plan." 

I think the debate is still out there. We will be 
having a lot of debate on this issue, especially here in 
California. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm glad the door's still 
open. 

MS. SMOLEY: It is. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't favor mandating an employer. 
I think that's an unfair way to go. 

In my bill, and I'm not here to, you know, get a vote 
on my bill, but we didn't mandate the employer to do anything 
other than everybody else. Everybody pays a tax, and everybody 
receives the benefits. So, the employer pays his share of the 
tax; he walks away from it at a level below what they're paying 
now. A smaller percentage of the payroll would be paid under my 
plan. 



11 

Moreover, the employer's relieved of the burden, 
actually the bigger one, of dealing with maybe two, or three, or 
four separate labor unions with a contract for each of them, 
which results in California, in the last several years, five out 
of six of our strikes have centered on health care. It doesn't 
belong on the employer's table. That should be done by all of 
us, to take care of everybody, and we all pay. I want to 
emphasize that. We all pay in, and we all get the benefits. 

So, I'm not an employer mandate person. I wouldn't 
mandate the employer any more than we're doing for every one of 
us. We're all going to pay in. 

Well, I guess we'll have to talk about that some 
more, since you're going to be working — 

MS. SMOLEY: And please feel free. You know, I'm 
open to have your calls, and we'll talk about anything you wish 
to talk about. 

SENATOR PETRIS: One last area is realignment. It's 
a tough area, and we went a long ways last year, too, to try to 
do things. But we've had some pains expressed by the counties 
that funding hasn't kept up with the change in duties, and so 
forth. 

Are you going to be working on that also? 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes. As a matter of fact, part of that 
came out of the Local Policy Council, which I sit on, and 
Finance Director Russ Gould sits on, also ex-Mayor of Modesto 
Carol Whiteside. And we've been working with counties and local 
governments, basically saying how can we restructure; how can we 
fix the relationship between state and locals. 



12 

I will be working on it. A lot of the ideas came out 
of counties and cities. We set up committees, and this is a 
structure that's a result of that. There's a lot of debate 
still to go on as to how to accomplish that. It's really a 
building on what we did last year in the first realignment try, 
and basically it's with no more money going to counties, no 
money in the budget to do that, how can we make our relationship 
better? How can we make it more flexible, give counties more 
say into what happens at home? Give them incentives to save 
money, and then allow them, in the saving, to keep the money. 
Allow them to move money from program to program; basically the 
flexibility that counties have wanted. 

And so, I will be — I'm intimately involved in that, 
because I really care about what happens to counties; obviously, 
I have 2 years invested at that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I know you bring a lot of the county 
problems . 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: To follow-up on Senator Petris ' s line 
of questioning. 

Secretary Smoley, some critics argue that the 
administration's current state and local government realignment 
proposal puts the counties financially at risk for programs that 
they have little control over, such as Medi-Cal, and AFDC. 

As the current Secretary of Health and Welfare, and 
former Supervisor, how do you respond to those criticisms? 



13 

MS. SMOLEY: You know, I have to be honest with you 
that the counties are a little afraid of the state. You know, 
when we start saying we want to make things better for you, and 
they say, "Yeah, right." 

But I will say this, that I feel very strongly that 
we need to do something to realign. What's built into that 
restructuring is about $700 million over what the programs 
actually cost. And it is viewed to be revenue neutral. It is 
viewed to not solve the state's budget process. And that's what 
I think is very important as far as a sell is concerned. This 
is not the state trying to balance it's back [sic] on the backs 
of counties. 

And as a result of that, I think it has a shot at 
passing because it is a good government restructuring proposal 
rather than a balanced budget proposal by the state. 

SENATOR AYALA: Did you feel that way when you were a 
Supervisor? 

MS. SMOLEY: Yes. You know, these ideas are coming a 
lot from me. If you don't like it, blame me, because I worked 
very hard in those areas, and I have a lot of friends still in 
the County Supervisors, and I say, "Tell me what you want to 
happen to make your life better." And this is the result of 
that. 

It's not unanimity, but I'll tell you, the Supes are 
saying, "Hey, this is a thing to look at." They're saying it 
because a county can save money in a program. They used to have 
to return it to the state, and it would go to pay for a county 
that wasn't doing a good job, and they didn't get the results of 



14 

them being better at providing the service. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're saying that CSAC ' s fears are 
unfounded? 

MS. SMOLEY: No, no. CSAC ' s fears are — they aren't 
expressing a lot of concerns. They — we've been meeting with 
them right along, and they're saying, "Hey, this is something to 
look at. " 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Any other questions? Any observations? 

Is there opposition in the audience? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move Ms. Smoley. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves Ms. Smoley ' s 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I had a motion. 

When we met yesterday, I forgot to tell you, and I 
apologize. 

I'd like to move that we put over the vote and maybe 
a limited hearing so that our new Pro Tern, who's going to be 
working with her and appointees coming in, will have a chance to 
take part either in questions or the vote itself. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't have a problem with that. 
I don't know if Ms. Smoley does. 

MS. SMOLEY: Do I have a choice even if I did? My 
life is in your hands. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We're in an awkward position, as 



15 

you all may know. This is, I think, my last meeting as the 
Chairman. 

However, traditionally in the House, if a Member asks 
for it to be put over, we put it over. 

MS. SMOLEY: Senator Petris , would you like to 
reconsider? 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, let me tell you, there's 
nothing on the horizon that I know of that ' s going to be 
opposing your appointment. 

I think it's only fair, as important an appointment 
as this. You're going to be working with the Pro tern, whether 
it's the present one or the new one. Since he approves this 
motion, I think it would be prudent to go along with it. You 
can impress him all over again, as you've impressed us. I don't 
see any problem. 

It's not intended to be negative toward you at all. 
You know my feelings; I've expressed them more than once. 

But I do feel that the new Pro Tern -- and I intend to 
do it on one or two other appointments as well — should have a 
role in this process. 

I think it'll be beneficial. You'll find it'll be 
helpful to you anyway. 

I assure you, it's not done for the purpose of any 
negative -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What Senator Petris is saying, I 
think you've been an outstanding Director of Health, and I don't 
know of any adverse comment on the operation of your office, or 



16 

the Agency, for that matter. 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: In fact, only praise. 

MS. SMOLEY: The thing that I would say to you is, 
it's great to get into the job and keep on rolling, you know. 
And this is a little bit of a distraction, I would say. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: It's a distraction, and I don't 
know what to tell you. 

The Membership of the House has to work with you. 
The fact of the matter is, we've always honored a put-over 
request . 

MS. SMOLEY: I'm not going to argue that. I have 
visited with all the 40 Senators. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I will not be without some 
influence in the House anyway, and I assure you, I am putting 
this over with the full anticipation you're going to be 
confirmed. 

MS. SMOLEY: That's fine. What can I say? 

SENATOR PETRIS: That includes my vote as well. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We've always acceded to a Member in 
the Rules Committee request to put a matter over. 

You don't intend to do that on all of them, or do 
you? 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, some; not all. 

MS. SMOLEY: Do I thank you for the pleasure of being 
one of them? 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yeah, long run, I think. 



17 

MS. SMOLEY: All right, great. That's fine. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You don't have to do it now. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Smoley. 

MS. SMOLEY: I'd just like to say thank you in your 
years of service, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MS. SMOLEY: And I appreciate your years as Pro Tern, 
and congratulate you on that. I'd like to say, I appreciate 
what you've done for the people of California. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's very thoughtful, and those 
are very nice words. I appreciate it. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Mr. President. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I understand what Senator Petris is 
doing. I think it's very nice, although I don't think it's 
necessary. 

I think if you're going to do it for one, you might 
as well do it for all of them. Why should you single out one 
person? 

And I'm willing to stipulate that she has no trouble 
being confirmed. That's fine. 

But, you know, the new President Pro Tern has to live 
with all of the things that have been laid down by this 
Committee for years and years and years, and taking it over 
without having had this input into it, to me, is not going to 
make one whit of difference to him. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I appreciate your comment. 
Nobody's asked for that, so unless you want to have 18 



18 

confirmations next week, I would suggest that we not do that. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, I mean, why should we 
automatically tell people, "You're not so very important," and 
then single out someone and say, "You're very important"? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, we're talking in this case an 
agency and a director of the two agencies that work intricately 
with the Legislature. 

I don't want to defend the request, necessarily, but 
there is a distinction that can be made. 

Thank you very much, Ms. Smoley. 

MS. SMOLEY: That's fine. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The appointment of S. Kim Belshe, 
Director of Health Services, I would suspect, is the other one. 
Why don't you come forward and tell us a little bit about 
yourself and why you feel you're qualified to assume this 
position? 

MS. BELSHE: Thank you, Senator Roberti. 

Listening in the audience, I had a sneaking suspicion 
I may be number two . 

And if you might indulge me to take a few more 
minutes than Secretary Smoley did in terms of introducing myself 
to some of the Members of the Committee with whom I have had 
some opportunity to work, and to say to start, as a fifth 
generation Calif ornian, I'm extremely proud and honored to have 
an opportunity to serve our state in such an important position 
as this . 

I believe that my professional experience, founded 
upon a strong academic background, has really prepared me well 



19 

to serve the state in this position. Prior to returning home to 
California to join Governor Wilson's administration, I was his 
primary advisor on health and aging issues in the United States 
Senate. In that capacity, I had an opportunity to work with 
many of the health care providers in California, as well as the 
many public health constituencies, on a variety of important 
pieces of federal legislation and policy in such areas as AIDS, 
breast cancer, cervical cancer, long-term care financing, and 
perinatal substance abuse. These are priorities and issues that 
I brought with me to Sacramento. 

As you know, for the past three years, I served as 
the state's Deputy Secretary for the Health and Welfare Agency, 
which oversees 13 departments, one of which is the Department of 
Health Services. And in that capacity, I've had a chance to 
work closely with departments, as well as with the Legislature, 
to help shape and form many important initiatives over the 
course of the past three years. 

For example, the Governor's -- I played a primary 
role in the development and the implementation of Governor 
Wilson's prevention agenda, efforts in promoting access to 
health care for uninsured low-income women and their newborns, 
efforts to reform our small group insurance market, and 
important efforts to protect and promote public health programs. 

I think as Deputy Secretary, I have developed a 
reputation of forging consensus around difficult public health 
and health care problems in the context of limited resources and 
rising needs, and I think I've developed a reputation for 
openness, accessibility, cooperation and integrity. My 



20 

priorities, focus, and accomplishments as Deputy Secretary, I 
believe, are indicative of the type of Director of the 
Department of Health Services that I hope to be. 

One area where some have questioned my commitment to 
public health is tobacco control. My commitment has been 
questioned as a result of the public affairs work I did for a 
coalition opposed to Proposition 99 while employed by a public 
affairs firm shortly after graduate school. At that time, I was 
representing a client and argued against Prop. 99 as a tax 
initiative and as another example of ballot box budgeting. At 
that time, I personally viewed the initiative from that 
perspective, and thus, was not uncomfortable arguing from that 
perspective . 

Since that time, however, I have come to view the 
initiative more broadly; not just as a tax initiative, but as a 
proposal that really can, and indeed has had a significant 
impact on changing behaviors . 

I would hope that the test of my commitment to these 
important issues of educating the public about the adverse 
effects of smoking, combating the problem of second-hand tobacco 
use, and of reducing the overall prevalence of tobacco use in 
our state, would be judged based upon my record as Deputy 
Secretary of the Agency. And I believe in that regard it's 
indicative of the views I bring as Director. 

I was a strong proponent of the Governor's Executive 
Order to ban smoking in all state buildings and his signature on 
subsequent legislation to that effect. I also strongly 
advocated the Governor's signature on recent legislation to 



21 

increase the tobacco tax to fund some vitally needed services in 
the area of breast cancer prevention and screening. And I have 
been a proponent of the array of nationally recognized and very 
successful Prop. 99 supported programs. 

Looking to the future, my priorities are clear. Let 
me touch on them just very quickly. 

First and foremost/ to expand access by emphasizing 
managed care and coordinating services for our children and 
their families. 

Number two, to emphasize prevention and the early 
detection of health problems. 

Number three, to promote and to strengthen public 
health. 

And finally, as Secretary Smoley noted, the important 
role of responding to the Clinton health plan. 

I am extremely mindful of the challenging context in 
which we seek to accomplish initiatives in all of these areas. 
We are trying to balance increased demand for services at the 
same time that we have fewer public resources to pay for them, 
and we're working hard to respond to California's growing ethnic 
diversity, and the persistent gap in health status among our 
ethnic populations. 

In my mind, very simply put, if we are to be 
successful at taking on these challenges, we simply must deliver 
services that make sense. 

I would say in closing, I appreciate the opportunity 
to serve the Governor and the state in such an important 
position as this. I am proud of my accomplishments to date and 



22 

positions of responsibility on behalf of the people of 
California, and I think that working in partnership with the 
Legislature, we have made some important inroads in our effort 
to refocus government's orientation to prevention and to expand 
access to our most vulnerable populations. 

I look forward to working with you, and to strive to 
fashion comprehensive and compassionate solutions to protect and 
promote the public health. 

I welcome any questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Belshe. 

Are there any questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Many Calif ornians have expressed 
disappointment that the current administration has not 
aggressively pursued universal health coverage for California as 
an objective. 

What are your views on the issue, and what do you 
propose to do about it as the State Health Director? 

MS. BELSHE: Well, I think, as Secretary Smoley 
indicated, California, under Governor Wilson's leadership and 
the efforts of the Legislature, have taken a number of 
incredibly important steps in the direction of making health 
care coverage more affordable and more available. 

I think the approach that Pete Wilson has promoted is 
an approach that has been extremely consistent with the very 
real budget realities we face, as well as the realities we face 
from the budget perspective. And in that regard, the Governor 
has focused on a couple of things. 

First and foremost, the focus on prevention and the 



23 

need to extend access to priority populations, most notably 
children and women. And in that regard, we've seen a number of 
very significant new initiatives: Healthy Start, which is an 
effort to better coordinate services to families and children; 
and the whole effort to created expanded prenatal care programs 
for uninsured low-income women and their newborns. 

What we've seen is a very targeted approach in terms 
of recognizing, to the extent we have limited resources, 
children and low-income women must be our first priority. 

As a second step, the Governor identified the next 
priority population, if you will. And when you look at the 
individuals who are uninsured in California, roughly 6 million, 
up to 75 percent of those individuals are connected to small 
businesses, the groups that really have the hardest time 
accessing health care coverage that's affordable. And what 
resulted from that commitment was a very comprehensive series of 
reforms enacted by the Legislature that the Governor had 
proposed to effect underwriting reforms in the small group 
insurance market, and HIPC, which Sandy Smoley mentioned. 
That's the nation's first statewide purchasing pool. 

The idea is very simple. Harness the purchasing 
power of small groups; give them the same leverage that a larger 
employer does. And what we found is the rates they've been able 
to negotiate are really quite extraordinary. They're up to 22 
percent below the CalPERS program, which is considered one of 
the most competitive pools in the country. That is an important 
step forward in terms of bringing down the cost of care without 
new taxes, without mandates to the small business community. 



24 

So, I think what you've seen is, the Governor put 
forward an approach that is consistent with our budget realities 
in terms of our not being in a position to dedicate a 
significant new amount of resources to our health care 
situation, but also a reality as it relates to the business 
climate in terms of the Governor's very real concern about 
imposing new obligations on the business community. 

I think you've also seen the Governor's commitment, 
and I've played a role in all of this, to really re-fashion what 
we are doing with the state's public programs. You and I 

hatted a little bit yesterday, Senator, about the state's 
Medi-Cal program, and there's a perfect example of a program 
where we can be doing business a lot better. And indeed, the 
administration's been very committed to moving that program in 
the direction of managed care to get better bang for the buck, 
but most importantly, to ensure better access to services. 

So, I think California justifiably can take 
considerable pride in a number of areas where we really are 
leading the nation and are laying the groundwork for whatever 
reforms ultimately come down the pike from Washington. 

SENATOR AYALA: Could we blame the Clinton 
administration for aggressively attempting to address this 
issue, putting our policies on a holding pattern until we find 
out what they will finally do so we can move and not be in 
conflict with what they're trying to do in Washington? 

MS. BELSHE: Well, I'm personally not terribly 
sanguine that we will see comprehensive universal reform out of 
Washington by this fall. 



25 

In my mind, the action in the near term continues to 
be in the states, and it's in states like California that are 
trying to move forward, albeit in an incremental manner, but in 
a manner that's consistent with the realities we face here in 
California. 

But I think we will be well prepared for whatever 
reform does come down the pike from Washington. 

SENATOR AYALA: But will you as the Director pursue 
that? 

MS. BELSHE: Very much so. We have been extremely 
involved in taking a look at the Clinton plan, which certainly 
offers considerable promise in terms of significantly expanding 
access to needed services and improving health status and health 
outcomes . 

I think the balance that needs to be striked, and 
we've heard Governor Wilson speak to this, is that from his 
perspective, the number one priority is jobs, and it's important 
that we not go down a path of health care reform that ultimately 
leads to few jobs. That's a situation that the Governor feels 
we can ill afford at this time. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MS. BELSHE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Are there any other questions? 
Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is there kind of a back-up plan? 
Some of the experts claim that the Clinton plan just isn't going 
to get up enough steam to pass this year. Senator Dole has 
really been hammering at it, and that puts the whole minority 



26 

party squarely against it, and there are others who oppose it. 

What troubles me is that in California, in spite of 
the good things done by the Governor, and I freely acknowledge 
that, a lot of it due to your influence, I might add, including 
the no smoking in the state buildings, and so forth, we still 
have close to 7 million people in this state without any health 
care coverage whatsoever. And the shocking thing about it is 
that 85 percent of them have full-time jobs. 

That's why I don't believe in dumping on the 
employer. A small employer can't afford to pay it. That's why 
I think we need -- you spoke about a pool. The principle of the 
pool ought to apply to every one of us. We all should be part 
of a pool. 

So, my point is, if those experts are correct, and we 
don't even get a plan this year, does the Governor intend to 
push something for California after that? 

MS. BELSHE: Well — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Or do you? 

MS. BELSHE: I'll give you my observations in terms 
of what I see coming down the road, and how I would anticipate 
California potentially reacting to that, or playing a role in 
that . 

My first comment, though, would be to underscore your 
point about mandatory -- implicitly, what I think I was hearing 
you say, simply mandating health insurance doesn't make that 
coverage affordable. And so, that has been one of the real 
stumbling blocks from many people's perspective, particularly 
Governor Wilson, in terms of what would be the implications of 



27 

such a mandate. And that's why the idea of the significant pool 
mechanisms, that can really harness the purchasing power of 
small groups, and give them the same leverage as a big employer, 
seems to make a lot of sense. And indeed, we've found it really 
has brought down the cost of coverage to make it more affordable 
for small businesses. And that really needs to be at least at 
this point in time our primary target population. 

But looking to the future, looking at what we see 
happening in Washington, D.C., I don't necessarily disagree. I 
thought I heard you say that things look uncertain in terms of 
what may ultimately may be produced from Washington. 

I think, though, there are some very common elements 
among the array of competing plans that ultimately could be a 
fairly significant effort, albeit not a universal one. And 
notwithstanding the President's message last night of the State 
of the Union, which seemed to once again really draw a line in 
the sand as it relates to universal coverage, I think there is a 
sense on Capitol Hill that there are a number of things that can 
be done now based upon pooling mechanisms, based upon managed 
care and prevention, underwriting reforms, tort liability. 
Efforts such as that, when, if taken together, can go a long way 
in terms of really reaching the targeted group, which is your 
small businesses. 

But one of the fundamental elements you need in order 
to make that work are revenues to provide subsidies to those 
individuals who, even after these pooling mechanisms have been 
created and costs have gone down, still cannot afford coverage. 
And that's why one of the ideas that's been kicked around back 



28 

east is the idea of putting a limit on the tax treatment of 
health benefits as a way to not only encourage cost-conscious 
purchasing by consumers, but also as a way of raising revenues 
that can then be targeted to these small businesses and 
individuals that simply can't afford coverage elsewhere. 

So, I would suggest there may be the elements of a 
compromise, but given the President's comments about universal 
reform, that may not occur — or, universal coverage, that may 
not occur. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, as I heard it, the ingredients 
he listed as an absolute minimum seemed to be in just about 
every bill that's up there. Everybody wants universal health 
care coverage. Everybody wants protection against prior 
existing condition. Some of the companies are already 
announcing they're not going to do that any more. Everybody 
wants an employee to continue to have the coverage, whether jobs 
are changed or not, wants to free the employee from the golden 
shackles of being tied to a wonderful health plan, and turning 
down opportunities for a better job elsewhere that doesn't have 
a health plan, or that doesn't have a very good one. Everybody 
agrees on that. And hopefully, you know, we'll come out of it 
with a consensus . 

I would ask you to reopen the door in your 
considerations with the Governor on single pay of some kind. 
The thing that's been overlooked is the enormous savings just on 
paper. Last year, there was published -- two studies were 
published. One by the General Accounting Office addressing the 
question: if the nation went to single pay, would there by any 



29 

savings? They concluded it would be $62 billion. That's more 
than enough to pick up everybody that isn ' t covered and provide 
more coverage. 

The New England Journal of Medicine -- that's not the 
New Republic ; that's the New England Journal of Medicine -- also 



did a study based on the figures of experience in 1987. Their 
findings were $82 billion, and then when they updated the 
figures to 1991, they came up with a savings of $135 billion, 
without cutting any doctor's fee or any hospital charges, but 
simply getting rid of the paperwork that's involved in the 1500 
different insurance companies that are operating in the country, 
each of them with a number of plans. 

It's really the paperwork, like the Roman Empire, is 
weighing down the whole thing. And you don't step on any 
provider's toes in the process. 

So, I would urge you to, you know, take a good look 
at that. 

MS. BELSHE: As you well know, Senator, under 
President Clinton's plan, notwithstanding the rhetoric about 
state flexibility, states really have one of two choices in 
terms of which path down which to go. One of those choices is, 
of course, the single payer. And certainly, given the interest 
in this body, as well as amongst the public, in terms of 
exploring single payer as an approach, I would anticipate that 
we collectively will be assessing single payer compared to the 
more managed competition type of approach to determine which 
option makes the most sense for California. 

And we have additional — some of our own thinking 



30 

going into it which probably tempers some of our enthusiasm, but 
we appreciate the advantages put forward by the advocates . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'll lend you some of my 
enthusiasm. 

That's one of the reasons that I'm urging you to 
reopen the door there and look at it. President Clinton -- 
rather, Mrs. Clinton, at the outset, with the task force, 
summarily rejected any talk of single pay. And then there were 
rumors that they would not permit any state to go into single 
pay. Now they've said it's up to you, so that's one of the 
options so far. That could change. 

Anyway, what I'm asking for is a thorough 
examination, to give that a fair test in its comparison with 
others while they're shaping it. 

I'd like to go on to tobacco, which we talked about 
yesterday. Well, I know the answer, because I talked to you 
yesterday, but I think it's good to have others hear you on the 
problem of transferring funds from one part of Prop. 9 9 to 
another, or out of 99 into other vitally needed care programs, 
direct care. 

The magic figure seems to be, well, it's in the 
statute, 20 percent is supposed to be allocated for the 
educational part and public media campaigns, and so forth. And 
it's now down to 11.7 in the current budget. 

Is it the goal of the Governor to get back to 20 if 
possible, or stay at 11.7, or some number in between? Where are 
we going in this area? 

MS. BELSHE: I think that the Governor's expenditure 



31 

plan for Prop. 99 lays out the administration's starting point 
for the reauthorization process which has just gotten underway. 

I would note, as we discussed yesterday, Senator, 
that the major, quote-unquote, "non-health education program" 
that has been supported by health education monies was the 
result of decisions made back in 1989, when the initial 
expenditure plan for Prop. 99 monies was approved by the 
Legislature. 

I think from our perspective, all of the programs 
that have been supported by the health education account money 
do contribute to the state ' s tobacco use prevention and 
cessation efforts. The screening programs for low-income 
children, which represents the bulk of the services monies in 
that account, do have very significant anti-tobacco education, 
information, and referral components that are targeted to the 
same population that the overall tobacco control activities 
focus on as well. 

So, I think we would argue that there indeed is some 
connection between the health education account monies and these 
screens, but we also understand the concern of individuals who 
argue that as a result of — I mean, the good news is, people 
are smoking less. And so, our 99 revenues have diminished 
significantly. Indeed, this past year they were down roughly 
$40-45 million, and we're projecting them to go down an 
additional $75 million in the budget year. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Would you attribute a lot of that to 
the education campaign, the media campaign? 

MS. BELSHE: Two points of view. The impact of the 



32 

tax, as well as the impact of the tobacco control activities in 
our schools, through the media campaign, our communities, and so 
forth. 

But recognizing that as revenues go down, and to the 
extent there ' s caseload-driven programs that have been protected 
from those overall reductions, that means some programs have 
been disproportionately impacted, as we discussed yesterday. So 
that ' s why the Governor ' s expenditure plan for the next two 
years includes a number of efforts to try to mitigate that 
impact on the tobacco control programs . 

For example, the proposed growth in the CHDP 
screening program, historically that growth has been funded out 
of health education. In the Governor's expenditure proposal, 
it ■ s funded out of other accounts to minimize the additional 
impacts that might occur on the health education programs . 

Additionally, recognizing the incredible success and 
the reach and the significance of the media campaign, our 
expenditure plan proposes to basically hold funding even for the 
media component of those health education programs. And even if 
revenues do continue to decline, to hold the media accounts at 
that level . 

So, we've tried to take some steps to mitigate the 
impact on the programs, in fact, if revenues are going down over 
all. 

I suppose the positive is, indeed, people are smoking 
less, but that does mean there are less monies available to 
support some very important programs . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Since talking to you yesterday, it 



33 

was brought to my attention that there ' s been a cut in the 
budget for Department of Health Services employees currently 
working on tobacco control programs, to the extent of one-third. 

Isn't that going to have a harsh impact on what 
they're doing? 

MS. BELSHE: It's something we're taking a look at, 
but it's directly a consequence of the fact that the revenues in 
Prop. 99 overall are dropping as dramatically as they are. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They're not out of General Fund; 
they're paid for out of the 99 — 

MS. BELSHE: They're paid for by the Prop. 9 9 
revenues , you bet . 

SENATOR PETRIS: So it's a direct function of that. 

MS. BELSHE: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So nothing succeeds like success. 
You ultimately get wiped out. 

MS. BELSHE: We need to keep reminding ourselves that 
there is good news in the plummeting dollars. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks very much. Good luck. 

MS. BELSHE: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I'm told there's some out of town 
witnesses for Ms. Belshe's confirmation. Why don't you come 
forward if you are in support or opposition, and you can let us 
know so we can accommodate you. 

DR. GILBERT: Thank you very much for the opportunity 
to speak. My name is Dr. Brad Gilbert. I am the President of 
the California Conference of Local Health Officers. I'm the 
Health Officer in Riverside County with the good GAIN program 



34 

that works so well. 

I'm here to speak in support of the confirmation of 
Kim Belshe because I believe she's committed to public health. 
I've seen that personally and professionally in her current 
position nominated as the Director. She has worked very closely 
with CCLHO. She made a commitment to get connected to our 
organization quickly, and has been very willing to listen to our 
input on critical public health issues. 

As she recounted, as Deputy, she was involved in a 
number of critical public health issues. As I think this group 
knows, teenage pregnancy is one of the more embarrassing 
statistics for the State of California, and Kim has been active 
in trying to work on the Enable Program, and other programs, to 
try to decrease that problem. 

In addition, in a very difficult budget year, and I 
understand that the budget certainly is not finished, they have 
proposed out of the Department three critical initiatives . 

Number one is tuberculosis control, which we believe 
is critical at a time when tuberculosis cases are increasing, 
and we're seeing more multi-drug resistant cases. 

Second is immunization programs. This is something, 
again, where the State of California actually does fairly well 
in regard to the rest of the country, but the country as a whole 
has an embarrassing record for immunization of our young 
children. 

Third is around women's health issues in terms of 
programs for sexually transmitted disease in women, early 
intervention programs for women with HIV disease. 



These critical initiatives, I believe, are a very 
positive evidence of Kim's commitment to public health. I 
would, of course, urge the Senate and Assembly to support those 
efforts, but I believe Kim Belshe has shown her commitment. 

Our organization is very happy to support her 
confirmation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Please, the next witness. 

MS. McBRIDE: Laurie McBride, Executive Director of 
the Life AIDS Lobby. My doctor has allowed me to be here today 
to testify, which is indicative of my support and the support of 
my Lobby for Kim Belshe. 

Just briefly, I want to say that the Life AIDS Lobby 
represents California's HIV affected gay and lesbian community, 
and we have had the opportunity to work directly with Kim on 
several occasions throughout her tenure. She has been 
inordinately accessible to the communities, listening carefully 
to the information that we had to present, and willing to work 
tiith us . 

In her capacity as Deputy Secretary of Health and 
Welfare, she was a staunch advocate for comprehensive and 
ompassionate HIV policies, including supporting legislation to 
prohibit discriminatory practices by health insurers against 
people who file HIV-related claims. She supported legislation 
:o expand off-label drug uses of FDA-approved drugs for life- 
:hreatening illnesses, and supported legislation to allow 
families living with AIDS to stay together in state-licensed 



36 

facilities . 

While we don't always agree, we find her a very 
knowledgeable and accessible advocate for the people of 
California, willing to listen to all of the advocates and come 
to sound public policy conclusions. 

We strongly urge your support for Kim Belshe as 
Director of Health Services. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. McBride. 

MS. CAPELL: Beth Capell, California Nurses 
Association. 

We're also in support of this nomination. I won't 
take very much of the Committee's time, but simply to say, as 
others have said before and others after me, that we have worked 
with Ms. Belshe and have found her to be a very effective 
advocate for health care. And we also have not always agreed, 
but we have found that she understands not only health care, but 
the concerns of the nursing profession in the way that we, 
frankly, have not experienced in previous administrations. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. DUNN-MORTIMER: John Dunn-Mortimer with AIDS 
Project Los Angeles. We provide social and health services for 
3900 people with HIV disease in Los Angeles County. 

We're here strongly in support of Kim Belshe. We've 
worked with her when she was with Senator Wilson, and at that 
point, she was a proponent of increasing federal funding for HIV 
care and treatment. And it's clear that over the years, she 
understands the issues surrounding HIV. She's demonstrated 
compassion. She's been pragmatic, and she's had a consistent 



37 

record of seeking community input. 

And some specific examples of ways that she's 
supported HIV in her former position, she was instrumental in 
getting administration support for mandating HIV education in 
secondary public schools. She worked to expand the number of 
life-saving drug therapies available in the AIDS drug assistance 
program. She has worked to help maintain private health 
insurance coverage for people with HIV, and she worked to remove 
a strange Medi-Cal requirement that you had to be 
institutionalized in order to receive home health care, which 
was designed to prevent institutionalization. 

Again, AIDS Project Los Angeles strongly supports her 
confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

For those who are going to be testifying, if you 
something new to add, please say so. If it's general 
confirmation, or to repeat what we have heard, your words are 
very important, but maybe identification as well as a statement 
of support would be all that would be necessary. 

And I didn't want to pick on you, Mr. Msemaji, for 
that opening remark. You were the first one up. 

MR. MSEMAJI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ken Seaton Msemaji with the United Domestic Workers 
of America. 

We've been, as you know, involved with in-home 
supportive services and first met Kim Belshe during the period 
when the Governor was Governor-elect. 



38 

We will ditto everything that has been said, because 
we've found that to be the case. 

I'd like to draw your attention to a few other 
unmentioned so far factors. 

You all have been faced with enormous budget deficits 
every year for the last several, several years. And in each one 
of those years, this Legislature and the executive branch, 
whether you're fighting or not, have protected in-home 
supportive services, and that has been due, in a large part, to 
the Governor's confidence in Ms. Belshe. And under that 
enormous pressure, IHSS has never been cut by one cent. There 
was a six-month period where there was a reduction in client 
hours, which was tantamount to a freeze. It only lasted six 
months because our state finally applied successfully for 
federal monies that we could have been getting all of these 
years for personal care services. 

Ms. Belshe and her associates were able to help the 
Governor and the Legislature to apply for those funds 
effectively and get them, and we got them last April. The 
program has been improved, and those cuts were restored. 

It seems to me that at this time of realignment here, 
as well as in Washington, we were recently back at the White 
House, talking about long-term care in the context of national 
health care reform, and they would like to expand that. 

We need the best team we can put together, and we're 
convinced it's Kim Belshe as part of that team. We need to go. 
We need to have our influence, and we need to get all the 
funding, and everything else we can, bring it back to 



39 

California. And if we must, let's fight over it here, but let's 
go get it. 

Ms. Belshe, and Ms. Smoley before her, are two of the 
people that we think are enormously necessary to our success, 
our continued success, interacting with the government in 
Washington. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Pro Tern, Senators, I'm Steve 
Thompson with the California Medical Association. 

We think that Kim Belshe is a dynamite appointment. 

Let me tell you where I first met Kim Belshe, because 
it wasn't in her current position. It was when she was an aide 
to Senator Wilson, and I was the Director of the Office of 
Research, and we were charged with implementing legislation on 
long-term care carried by then-Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly. 
Lloyd Connelly, being a Democrat, did not have strong Republican 
support for the federal waiver requirements and the statutory 
changes that were necessary in Washington in order to start this 
pilot project, which is now ongoing, and the State Legislature 
here was the only one funded, until we met Kim Belshe, who not 
only pushed the bureaucracy on this -- she's forgotten this -- 
but also was successful in getting the provisions of this bill 
included in federal legislation at the state level. 

So, from that standpoint, when you find somebody on 
anybody's staff that is willing to take on successfully the 
federal bureaucracy, you tend to think that that's a hero that 
ought to be cherished. And I think that's the kind of context 



40 

that Kim Belshe brings to public service, and I think you'd be 
honored all in supporting her endorsement. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me get this clear. 

Are you in favor of this nominee? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, but I was hoping you weren't 
going to ask the single payer question, Senator Petris. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next. 

MR. FLATT: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
Dennis Flatt, representing Kaiser Permanente. 

I've had the pleasure of working with Kim Belshe on a 
number of issues over the last two or three years, and I've 
found her to have the qualities that you're looking for in a 
department director. Among those are accessibility, and 
thought f ulness , and intelligence, and the ability to act, and 
guts . 

And I think the one new thing I'd like to add is, I 
really saw her under fire this last year, in 1993, when there 
were efforts to try to undo a lot of the reforms that were 
accomplished by the State Legislature in the small group 
insurance reform legislation. She took a lot of heat. She 
showed me that she also has the quality of being a Marine when 
it's necessary to be one, and I think she'll make an excellent 
appointment . 

I have already forgiven her for her checkered past 



41 

and look forward to great accomplishments. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, I'm Bob Marshall. I'm the CEO of the California 
Pharmacists Association. 

We'd just like to echo what's been said before. We 
very much support the appointment of Ms. Belshe as Director. 
She's got a tough job of balancing the needs of public health of 
the state, the requirements that are set forth in our budget, 
and trying to keep the health providers happy. She's certainly 
achieved a good balance as far as we're concerned, and we're 
looking forward to working with her subsequently. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. DOWELL: Mr. Chairman, Senators, I'm Soap Dowel 1, 
a member of the Major Risk Medical Insurance Board, appointed 
there by Speaker Willie Brown. 

In that capacity, I have had the pleasure and the 
very rewarding experience of serving with Ms. Belshe, who has 
been an ex officio member of that Board for the past three 
years . And I can attest to you with general response to the 
specific questions which you've asked, Senator Petris, regarding 
a commitment to expanded access, to the success of the MRMIB 
program, the AIM program, and the HIPC program, that Ms. 
Belshe 's commitment to the success of those programs, to the 
expansion of them to the fullest extent possible with the 
realities of the budget are without reservation. 

She has made a great contribution there, particularly 



42 

because her commitment to them has reflected and enhanced the 
commitment of the administration. 

I strongly urge this confirmation as the Director of 
the Department of Health Services. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. HITCHCOCK: Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is 
Doug Hitchcock. I'm the Executive Vice President of the 
California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. 

It's impossible to avoid being redundant, so I'll 
just be brief instead. 

Our experience with Kim in the years we've worked 
with her, starting with her service in Washington with the 
United States Senate, and through the extraordinary efforts that 
Secretary Smoley and she have made to get the health care system 
up and running again in Los Angeles County in the last week, we 
have found Kim Belshe to be a person of extraordinary integrity, 
competence, energy, and dedication, and strongly urge your 
confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is Jim 
Morgan. I am the Government Relations Manager for CIBA 
Pharmaceuticals . 

I, Mr. Chairman, accept your admonition that we be 
brief. Unfortunately, I'm the last person in line to testify. 

We urge your confirmation of Kim Belshe. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 



43 

Is there anyone here in opposition? 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I want to renew the same motion for 
the reasons stated, putting this one over. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris asks that we also 
put this one over in the anticipation that you are going to be 
confirmed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. I might add, I'm committed to 
vote for you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's not total consolation that 
you have to go through this, but we always honor the one week. 

SENATOR PETRIS: One meeting. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MS. BELSHE: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 



Members . 



L.A.? 



MS. SMOLEY: Can I call on a conference call from 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, I will insist on it. You'd 
better stay in the San Fernando Valley. 

We're going to take them up in this order: Bobbie 
Fiedler, Member of the California State Lottery; and then 
Mr. Julian S. Marquez, Warden of the Chuckawalla Valley State 
Prison. Then I will try to take up the Trustees of the 
California State University together, and then, of course, 
Ms. Olivarez. 

Thank you for coming, Ms. Fiedler. 

MS. FIEDLER: Thank you. And thank you for all your 
help with the San Fernando Valley. 



44 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Right, thank you. I am sorry 
about both your family tragedies, and certainly the earthquake 
struck you as devastatingly as it did everybody. 

MS. FIEDLER: It keeps us all on our toes. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll ask you what we've asked all 
the appointees, and that's why you're qualified to assume the 
position as a Member of the California State Lottery. 

MS. FIEDLER: I have a broad base of experience in a 
variety of different types of business as well as government 
experiences. I have been a small business person. 

I also have served as a member of the Los Angeles 
Board of Education, and of course, education is the primary 
purpose for the funding that comes to the Lottery. I was Chair 
of the Budget Committee there, so I understand the finances of 
the school district. 

I also have served as a member of the Budget 
Committee at the federal level, and a member of the Joint 
Economic Committee, and I think that I have a good sense of 
creativity in terms of how to approach the management and 
business problems that exist, as well as an understanding of the 
people who are being served by the agency. 

I look forward to trying to help maximize the amount 
of revenue for public education, because I believe personally 
that's the primary purpose for the Lottery's existence and, 
hopefully, future success. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Absolutely. 

Are there any questions of Ms. Fiedler? Senator 
Ayala . 



45 

SENATOR AYALA: Your term is for five years on the 
Lottery Commission. 

What kind of leadership do you believe the Commission 
needs right now, and how do you hope to provide some of that 
leadership? What programs do you think should be involved? 

MS. FIEDLER: I think the most important thing that 
we can do is make certain that the reputation of the Lottery is 
much improved in terms of its management, of its relationship 
with businesses, in terms of contracting, offering a broad base 
of businesses the opportunity to become involved in the 
contracting process. 

I personally in the past have been very supportive of 
small business initiatives, and I think we need to expand the 
number of businesses that come to the Lottery and participate in 
the competitive process so that we don't end up with simple 
sole-source type of contracting. 

I think that we have to work hard to make sure that 
we have as much revenue as possible for public education, that 
we develop a closer and better understanding of those 
relationships, and that we keep tight control over the 
administrative elements of the agency, and make certain that 
monies are spent only on an absolutely as-needed basis. 

I want to make certain that any advertising funds 
spent, which is an important element of the budget to bring more 
people into participation with the Lottery, are done in a very 
cost-effective manner and are measured. In fact, I had a 
discussion today with one of the members of the Lottery about 
the importance of making certain that if we're going to spend 



46 

funds for advertising purposes, that we see a direct cost 
benefit ratio to it, and not simply spend them because it's a 
habit of spending. 

SENATOR AYALA: Would you support a smaller 
percentage from the Lottery funds going to advertising and into 
the classroom instead? 

MS. FIEDLER: I think it's important that we spend 
every dollar we can for public education. We have a major 
crisis within the state. We also, of course, have local crises. 
I'm from the San Fernando Valley. I live in Northridge. I have 
grandchildren who are unable to attend school, and I think it's 
important that we get our schools back up on their feet and make 
certain that they're funded in as high as possible levels 
because they need it, and they're entitled to it. They're the 
next generation. 

SENATOR AYALA: Your answer is yes. 

MS. FIEDLER: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MS. FIEDLER: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there anyone here in support or 
opposition? 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Craven moves . 

No further discussion or debate, Secretary, call the 
roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



47 



SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Roberti . 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is five to zero; confirmation's recommended 
to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MS. FIEDLER: Thank you very much, all of you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next is Julian S. Marquez, Warden 
of Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, California Department of 
Corrections . 

Mr. Marquez, we'll ask you the same question, and 
that is why you feel you're qualified to be the Warden of 
Chuckawalla Valley? 

MR. MARQUEZ: First of all, I'd like to take the 
opportunity to thank you all for being here before you for my 
confirmation and consideration as Warden at Chuckawalla. 

I am a 26-year old — 26-year career correctional 
employee. I have promoted through the ranks from a correctional 
officer student trainee at the age of 19, back in 1968. And 
like I say, I got promoted through the ranks up to my present 
position as Warden at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, for which 
I was initially appointed in October on an acting capacity, and 



48 

by the Governor on February the 3rd of 1993. 

In my 26 years' experience with the Department of 
Corrections, I have enjoyed approximately 14 different job 
classifications. I've also had the benefit of working in nine 
correctional institutions throughout the system. 

And also my background, I have two full-time teaching 
credentials: one in public services administration, and one in 
Spanish heritage. My educational background, I am a graduate of 
1967 from Chaffey High School in Ontario, California. I have 
also received my AA Degree in Correctional Science from Chaffey 
College in Alta Loma in 1971, and from 1971 to the present, I 
have attended a variety of universities and colleges and have 
accumulated approximately 80 college units in pursuit of my 
Bachelor's Degree in Correctional Science. 

In view of my foregoing experience, education, and 
background, I believe that I am professionally qualified, 
experienced, and prepared to serve the Governor, the State 
Legislature, the Department of Corrections, the inmate 
population, and the citizens of California as the Warden of 
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions? 

Is there anyone here in opposition? 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have a drug problem within the 
compounds of the prison? What's the little town up there? 

MR. MARQUEZ: Chuckawalla? Blythe? 

SENATOR AYALA: Blythe. Is there a drug problem 



49 

within the prison grounds? If so, how do you control that, what 
are you doing to control that? 

MR. MARQUE Z : As the Warden, you know, my 
responsibility is to try to control those kinds of activities as 
much as possible. 

In the last year, I can remember just a few number of 
drug-related situations within the prison as it involves the 
visitors and so forth. 

Now, in terms of the inmate population, they seem to 
have a creative way of becoming involved in the possession of 
narcotics, and we are very much pursuing that aggressively 
through some type of a prevention, disciplinary, and of course, 
supervision. 

SENATOR AYALA: The perception up there is that there 
is a lot of trafficking dealing with drugs within the prison, 
and people are confused. 

Is that over-blown? Is that not quite the case? 

MR. MARQUEZ: Well, Senator, I do know that there is 
a problem with drug trafficking, especially at Chuckawalla, but 
we try to aggressively pursue that by searching as much as we 
can. During the month of December, I believe, there were about 
seven visitors that we turned away because they were the subject 
of some attention over the possibility of drug trafficking. 

So, we try to do what we can in terms of that regard, 
still making sure that we remain legal in our process. 

SENATOR AYALA: You turned away, you say. They were 
within the prison grounds and you couldn't apprehend them? 

MR. MARQUEZ: No, they were people that, through our 



50 

monitoring system, through our telephone, or through our 
supervision, that we had information that they may be trying to 
introduce narcotics or drugs into the institution. 

And as the procedures and policies are such, they 
decided that they would not allow us to search them. They would 
not allow us to process them as we do visitors, and they elected 
to not enter the premises of the institution. 

SENATOR AYALA: If these folks are in the parking 
lot, let's say, of the facility, and they had drugs with them, 
as long as they don't try to get through the gate to the prison 
grounds, you cannot apprehend them? 

MR. MARQUEZ: If I am aware, sir, that they are in 
possession of narcotics, and we have a reasonable belief, then 
we will pursue them. 

SENATOR AYALA: You would, even though they're not 
within the — 

MR. MARQUEZ: Yes, sir. Yes, we have. In the past, 
there's times that we have had the assistance from the local PD 
come and join with us to make sure that we deal with these drug 
traffickers swiftly and directly as we can. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? 

Anyone here in support? Anyone here in opposition? 

MR. THOMPSON: Chairman Robert i and Members, I'm Jeff 
Thompson with the Correctional Peace Officers Association. 

The Association is here, actually, given there's no 
opportunity for neutral to come forward, to come in with a 
caveat because we do have some questions. 



51 

MS. MICHEL: You can be neutral. 

MR. THOMPSON: We can be neutral. 

Generally, our Association has received an awful lot 
of input from the officers and chapters out there on a lot of 
the Wardens' appointments. And believe me, we screen them 
pretty heavily, and we don't bring a lot of them here. And it's 
rare that our Association is involved with these hearings as a 
general rule. There's been an awful lot of appointments of 
Wardens, as you know, over the last decade. So, it's with some 
qualification that we're here now. 

We have concerns about this appointment . We ' ve gone 
through a battery of different grievances and things that have 
been filed over the last several months, but we dismissed all of 
those except for one that kind of sticks in our mind as fairly 
serious. We'd like to bring this to the attention of Mr. 
Marquez and also to this Committee and this forum. 

If the Sergeant would pass out, if they haven't 
already, there is a formal grievance that was filed, as you'll 
note. It was received at the Chuckawalla Prison on the 26th of 
October of '93, wherein an officer who was in court dealing with 
a domestic issue; it had to do with his fiance's ex-husband. 
And in this case, this officer had on — at some point, be 
subject to some fairly, we think, improper action by the Warden 
before you. Specifically, an attempt to prejudice a judicial 
hearing; a violation of the CDC policies concerning information 
practices. That's Section 1303 of the Department's 
Administrative Manual. Violated the state's contract with its 
employees, which is Section 9.05. 



52 

And also included in your handout is a letter from an 
officer of the court, the counsel to Officer Barr, which 
indicates phone calls from Mr. Marquez and a lieutenant at the 
institution which was received without solicitation -- and I 
want to underline that point -- without solicitation, 
instructing the Deputy D.A. to ignore letters that were 
character letters for Officer Barr in his judicial hearing. 
Again, a domestic issue off the -- having nothing to do with the 
prison. 

The D.A. was instructed, and I found that to be 
interesting words, instructed by the Warden to disregard those 
letters and that they were not to be considered by the court. 

Also, the two lieutenants who were the individuals 
who wrote these character letters did so in violation of orders 
-- orders not to express their opinion to the court — and would 
therefore be administratively punished. 

Also there was, according to the counsel, even more 
alarming, the Deputy D.A. was notified of different items in the 
personnel file of the officer, which is also a violation of the 
contract of the state with its employees. 

We have some very, very serious problems with kind of 
behavior in the position of Warden, which is such a strong 
position, and is such power attributed to that. This is one 
matter we had to bring to the Committee and ask you to ponder on 
it. 

I might add, the letters that were sent to the court 
as character-type letters were not on Departmental letterhead. 
These were individuals that submitted their comments. 



53 

So, the questions that we would ask the Committee to 

consider asking Mr. Marquez is whether or not those lieutenants 

have, in fact, been disciplined for their submitting of letters 

to the court? And if they have, why? 

I think that the counsel has probably one of the best 

paragraphs we've seen in a long time on the topic. And he wrote 

to the court: 

"My only comment to the court ..." 

and this was behind closed doors with the Deputy D.A. and the 

judge, his: 

"... only comment to the court in reply 

was that any individual, regardless of 

rank or position, had a right to file with 

the court their comments in support, or 

not in support of [Officer] Barr. That no 

supervisor, or Warden had a right to tell 

any United States citizen not to utilize 

their right of free speech. Since the 

letters were not on Department letterhead, 

nor in any way [purported] to be from the 

management, they were perfectly within 

their right to submit their comments . " 

It would be highly inappropriate, I think everyone 

would agree, that anyone would order someone not to submit their 

observations, comments, on another individual to a court of law. 
Does Mr. Marquez believe that a Warden can ignore 

these provisions of law and interfere with a court proceeding? 

We think that's a very fair question. 



54 

This matter was formally grieved. It's 90 days since 
its original filing today. Now it sits at the Departmental 
level . 

We'd like to know also if there's going to be any 
retaliation of the formal grievance of our chapter as a result 
of bringing these facts before you at this hearing. We think 
those are fair questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Mr. Marquez, why don't you respond. 

Does anyone else with to testify? 

MR. SEARCY: In support. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How many would like to testify in 
support? Just you? 

Okay, why don't you respond to Mr. Thompson's 
questions, and then we'll have the support witness. 

MR. MARQUEZ: Sure. 

I guess I appreciate the comments by the gentleman. 

In this particular situation, as I remember back 
there, we had an officer who had been arrested for a battery 
against a citizen who happened to be the estranged or ex-husband 
of this officer's girlfriend. The officer had been arrested, 
and he was undergoing judicial processing when the District 
Attorney from Riverside County called the office and wanted to 
know what our position was because he was a little confused over 
the fact that there were two letters on file from two 
correctional lieutenants. And his impression was that they were 
official letters from the Department of Corrections in behalf of 
this officer who had just committed an assault. And he felt 



55 

that there was an issue there that we needed clarification 
[sic] . 

Through my investigator, I had the office contacted. 
And the direction that was given was that they needed something 
from Chuckawalla indicating our position, and our position was 
that people have the right, under free speech, to communicate 
letters of character, or whatever, against anybody they so wish. 
However, in the manner that these letters were written indicated 
that it was a supportive position of the Department, and which 
it was not. 

So, my mere fact of responding to the issue was to 
set the record straight that we do not condone this kind of 
behavior, that we do not feel that the office was appropriate in 
his conduct. And subsequently, I needed to clear up that issue. 
That's what drew the attention to that matter. 

MR. THOMPSON: I would just call the Committee's 
attention to the point that the written declaration in writing 
by the counsel to Mr. Barr indicated that the phone calls from 
the Warden were unsolicited by the Deputy D.A. or anyone in the 
D.A. ' s Office. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: My own thought on the matter is, 
when we get into these kinds of personnel questions, I like to 
investigate them ourselves to some extent. 

We'll hear the supportive witness, but I think I 
would like to put this over mainly because we have to look into 
the issue. 

That's not to prejudice your nomination in any 
way . 



56 

MS. MICHEL: You need to know, we have 365 days on 
February 8th. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: It has to be put over until 
Wednesday. 

Will the next witness please come forward. 

And that ■ s only because we have to look at the 
information. 

Please come forward. 

MR. SEARCY: My name is Frank Searcy. I'm President 
of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association. 

At this point, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the 
Members of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to share with 
you that the Chicano Correctional Workers Association regrets 
deeply you leaving the leadership of this Committee. However, 
we wish you the best of luck in your service with the rest of 
the Senate. And on the same token, we wish your successor good 
luck. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. SEARCY: The Chicano Correctional Workers highly 
and deeply support the confirmation of Mr. Marquez . It is 
obvious that Mr. Marquez is highly qualified academically in 
this area in the correctional science field. It is also very 
obvious that he is very highly qualified in the area of 
administration of a prison. 

It has been known throughout the Department of 
Corrections, possibly, that one of the most difficult jobs to 
do, to complete, is to handle and manage a new prison. Mr. 
Marquez has highly succeeded in that area. 



57 

There isn't too much more that I can say or add to 
what Mr. Marquez has already said. At this point, not knowing 
any of the situation that has been presented, and should we say 
the negative situation, not knowing personally anything about 
it, and at this point, I definitely don't want to attempt to, or 
appear to attempt to, minimize that situation. 

However, I think it is relief to Mr. Marquez if 
that's all that was brought forward. I think that's very good 
under the circumstances where you're running a prison and you 
are flooded with these types of situations. 

Again, if this was all that was presented, I think 
that when the Committee concludes their investigation, and they 
put all the positives and negatives together, it's no question 
in our mind that you will overwhelmingly be able to confirm 
Mr. Marquez ' s confirmation. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Mr. Marquez, we'll put you over for one week. 
That'll give the staff a chance to look into the information 
involved. We definitely have to take you up, and I'll inform 
the new Chair that we have to take you up before the 5th and 
have the confirmation on the Floor. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. MARQUEZ: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think we need to take a break. 
We'll break for five minutes. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will come to order. 



58 

We will now take up the Members of the Trustees of 
the California State University: Mr. William Hauck, Joan Otomo- 
Corgel, and Rosemary E. Thakar. 

Will you all come forward. We'll take you at the 
same time, just in the interest of time. 

The Speaker is here to introduce one of the nominees, 
as is Senator Johnston. What we normally do is, we call the 
Member up, Mr. Speaker, why don't you come forward. 

SPEAKER BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members 
of the Senate. 

I am delighted to be extended the opportunity to do 
two things to day. To first appear before this Rules Committee, 
Mr. Roberti, in your 14th year presiding over this Rules 
Committee. Based on your announcement this morning, I fear that 
this may be the last opportunity I'll have to appear at the time 
in which you Chair. 

I'd first like to, frankly, acknowledge a debt that 
all the State of California owes to you for 14 years of 
extraordinary service -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

SPEAKER BROWN: — chairing the Senate Rules 
Committee, as well as the President Pro Temship of the Senate. 

The two of us were elected on the same identical day 
to our respective leadership posts. And it's been a pleasure, 
even when we fought it was a pleasure. 

And I must tell you that I am, frankly, looking 
forward to being of continued assistance in association with you 
in whatever path your further career may take. I hope you will 



59 

blaze a trail appropriately for another soon to be ex-leader of 
the House. 

So, do well, my brother. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, thank you. All good 
things come to an end. That's part of life. 

I appreciate your remarks, and one of the great 
experiences of my life has been not only holding the position, 
but working with you, sometimes in smoke-filled rooms of the 
Governor's Offices where we plotted on how to take on the 
Republicans, and sometimes we did, and other times we didn't. 
Usually we converged for the benefit for the state, even with 
the Republicans. 

Thank you very much. 

SPEAKER BROWN: Thank you for the opportunity to 
appear . 

Secondly, when the Governor's Office informed me that 
they had nominated William Hauck to become a Member of the Board 
of Trustees for the California State University system, a system 
that afforded me the opportunity for an education and to be 
appropriately credentialed in this state, I was, frankly, 
delighted and sought permission of Mr. Hauck to come over and 
participate, to the extent that I could, on his behalf when he 
came up for confirmation. 

I think I even personally spoke to some Members of 
the Senate and of this particular Committee, expressing my 
views. It's a rare occasion. I don't think I've done that at 
any other time during the time that you have known me, 
Mr. Roberti and Members of the Senate. I don't think I've been 



60 

before you on behalf of any other candidate. 

I think Mr. Hauck is extraordinarily special. He 
abandoned his own profession and his own private life for a 
period of time when I was in desperate need of leadership at my 
staff level. He returned from his own world to handle my 
operations for a full year, as was needed, and it was a 
devotion, frankly, clearly to his public service rather than to 
compensation. We couldn't even come close to compensate him for 
the enormous amount of money he must have been making at that 
time . 

And then secondly, I had first been exposed to 
Mr. Hauck in the time period when my good friend, and your good 
friend, Bob Moretti, was the Speaker of the House. Mr. Hauck 
was a staff person for Mr. Moretti. In all of those years, and 
in all those time periods, Mr. Hauck was remained one of the 
most appropriate public spirited, public servant principled 
persons that I have known in public life. 

I would commend him to your Rules Committee and to 
the entire Membership of the Senate. 

I have no clue as to what wisdom -- that may not 
often be there, but it certainly was wisdom when he tapped 
Hauck. I, frankly, was holding Hauck back for the successor to 
Pete Wilson to nominate for something, but Pete Wilson has now 
done that, and it is a good step. 

I commend Mr. Hauck, and I commend his candidacy to 
you . 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 



61 

SPEAKER BROWN: And that is not to slight the two 

ladies. I just don't know them. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Johnston. 

SENATOR JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to 
add except to state my full support and knowledge, after 14 
years of serving in the Assembly and now the Senate Education 
Committees, and as a friend of Mr. Hauck, that his contribution 
to this public university will well serve the students and the 
state as a whole. 

I recommend him to you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. Hauck, we will start with you, and then we will 
go to Ms. Otomo-Corgel, and then Ms. Thakar. We'll ask all of 
you why you feel that you're qualified to be in these positions. 

MR. HAUCK: Thank you, Senator Roberti. 

I was going to defer to the ladies . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You're alphabetically higher. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. HAUCK: That's probably in the only way. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: In this world of equality, don't 
feel badly about it. 

MR. HAUCK: I wish the Speaker were correct, that I 
was out there making millions and millions when I came back to 
help. 

With respect to your question, let me just say two 
things. First, I've actually wanted to be a Member of the Board 
of Trustees of this University for a long time, because I am a 
product of what was then the California State Colleges, 



62 

graduating from San Jose State in 1963. 

And actually at that time, I was involved in helping 
students be represented before the Trustees as we resurrected 
that year the California State College Student Presidents 
Association, which had been dormant prior to that time, and 
along with a friend, Jim Hearst, who was the President of Chico 
State, we attended each of the Trustees meetings and finally, at 
the end of that year, the Trustees actually agreed to formally 
recognize the student presidents as being legitimately in 
attendance at those meetings. 

And I would say today that we've come a considerable 
ways. At every one of the meetings of the Trustees, students 
are not only represented, they're — they have regular seats, 
and microphones, and an opportunity to participate in all of the 
proceedings of the Trustees. 

So, I feel I have a real strong affiliation with the 
University. I now have two children that are part of it: one 
at San Diego State, and one at San Francisco State. 

Secondly, I'm very interested in doing this because I 
think it's critical to the future of California that we keep the 
California State University system functioning, and functioning 
in a way that provides access to as many students as we can 
afford to provide, and assist students who have difficulty in 
affording college to get to college, because I feel strongly 
that higher education is the future for California. I think it 
has been in the past, and it will continue to be. It will be 
the major, I think, piece of our recovery economically in 
California. 



63 

And I think higher education generally, not just CSU, 
needs as much help as we can provide because, as all of you 
know, higher education, in the course of our budget priorities 
here, kind of winds up in a tough position. Prop. 98, and 
health and welfare requirements, often leave higher education in 
a position where additional funding is difficult for them. 

So, I'm strongly committed to this system, and I'm 
very anxious to serve on the Board. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Ms. Otomo-Corgel . 

MS. OTOMO-CORGEL: I'm here in support of Bill Hauck. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. OTOMO-CORGEL: I am looking forward to, 
hopefully, serving on this Board. I owe the State of 
California, its taxpayers, a huge debt. I'm a 13-year attendee 
of the California State school systems. I graduated from Cal . 
State Fresno the first year it became CSU. I went to UCLA to 
complete my dental degree, then went and did a Master's program 
at UCLA in Behavioral Sciences Health Education, and did an 
internship and another couple of years of post-doctoral 
periodontal, and have taught, however, at UCLA for 21 years 
already, starting out my junior year at the Dental School in 
Head and Neck Anatomy. 

I also owe a large debt because I have 20 relatives 
who are graduates of this program, of the CSU system. And as 
with Bill, I also feel the school -- the CSU is part of a 
solution economically, socially, technologically for the future. 

Education is a solution versus incarceration. I 



64 

mean, if I was to be a tax-paying citizen, you get your money's 
worth generally out of a person who has gone through a four-year 
college and gotten a degree and they become a very vital, 
tax-paying element in the future. 

Also, the present Board, of which we have been 
serving for about nine months now, the three of us, would be a 
privilege and a pleasure to be associated with. It is a very 
collaborative board. We don't always agree on issues, but we 
have a similar mission. 

I see this as an excellent experience and an 
opportunity to pay back the citizens. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Rosemary Thakar. 

MS. THAKAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 
the Committee. 

In the interest of time, I will be very brief. I 
will tell you why I would like to be a Trustee. 

As a concerned citizen, as a parent, as a volunteer, 
I've had a life-long interest in education. The focus of all of 
my volunteer efforts has been to promote the causes of children 
and young people, helping them to expand their cultural 
horizons . 

I've worked with the Metropolitan Opera National 
Council, the San Francisco Opera Company, and several symphony 
organizations in the various places where I have lived. 

When I was in my 40s, I was a full-time student at 
the University of California, Berkeley, with four teenagers at 



65 

home. It brought reality right into the breakfast room, let me 
tell you. I can relate to adult students who return to campus 
to expand on or to update their training. 

I should add that four of my children have attended 
California universities. Two of them have gone on to post-grad, 
studies . 

Let me tell you a bit about my experience. Like 
Mr. Hauck and Ms. Otomo-Corgel, we have been acting Trustees for 
the past nine months or so. We have attended all of the 
scheduled meetings. We have attended functions at various 
campuses. We've attended commencements and visited other 
campuses in our capacities as Trustees. 

Prior to that, I served for 10 years on the 
President's Advisory Board at San Francisco State University 
during the tenure of Dr. Paul Romberg and Jawei Woo. 

I also bring a no-nonsense sense of business to this 
body as a principal and founder of Thakar Aluminum Corporation, 
which specializes in recycling and secondary aluminum processing 
in Corona, California. We also have another facility in Ohio. 
Presently, I am a principal and co-founder of Mike's Furniture, 
which is both a manufacturing and retail concern. We employ 
about 250 people in Northern and Southern California. 

Looking to the future, I would like to see -- looking 
to the future for the CSU in the 21st Century, I'd like to see 
them continuing their deep commitment to diversity at every 
level. I'd like to see the California Academy of Sciences 
program -- now, I believe, offered only at Cal . State Dominguez 
Hills -- I'd like to see that become a reality at each of the 



66 

CSU campuses so that no segment of the California population is 
left without the opportunity to avail themselves of the best 
educational opportunities offered anywhere in the world. 

Thank you for allowing us to appear here today. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Is there anyone here in support of one of the 
candidates? 

MR. CRIST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

Bill Crist, Chairman of the California Faculty 
Association, Political Action Legislative Committee. 

I come here representing the 17,000 faculty of the 
California State University. 

First, Mr. Chairman, just one second, because we all 
-- I would like to echo many of the comments made by others 
today, thanking you for your many years of service. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. CRIST: We were just talking when we shouldn't 
have been back there, saying that it's touching, even, to be 
here for your last meeting. We very much respect the work 
you ' ve done over the years . 

As many of you know, it has always not been smooth 
sledding between the faculty of the California State University 
and the Trustees and the administration of that system. We've 
worked very hard in the last number of years to bring the 
faculty and the administration and Trustees closer together. 

It's with a great deal of joy in my heart that I'm 
able to tell you that we're making considerable progress among 
those lines. We're now moving into an era of something called 



67 

interest-based bargaining: a less adversarial, more 
collaborative way of conflict resolution. And the current Board 
of Trustees has endorsed that. 

And it ' s our pleasure to recommend to you 
confirmation of all three of the persons that stand before you 
today. I was able to spend a nice afternoon this afternoon, 
waiting for this Committee to get to us, with Ms. Thakar and 
Ms. Otomo-Corgel . And it was the first time that I had been 
able to meet and become acquainted with them, although we're 
acquainted with their work on the Trustees . 

Mr. Hauck, of course, we all know, and I would like 
to echo the words of the Speaker and Senator Johnston in that 
regard. And most recently even in meetings that are still 
filled with controversy in the CSU Trustees, Mr. Hauck has 
continued to distinguish himself by calling things to the 
attention of all those present to be alert to the political 
realities of the University and the need to obtain good support 
and good funding. 

We're very comfortable with all three of these 
persons and recommend, on behalf of the faculty, that you do 
indeed confirm their appointments to the Board. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Anyone else? 

Is there anyone in opposition? Any Member that would 
like to speak? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question to, I guess, all 
three . 



68 

How would you assess the impact the drastic fee 
increases are having on students? Are there other funding 
sources under consideration by the CSU, other than fees and 
state funds? 

MS. OTOMO-CORGEL: Because of the budgetary cutback, 
the CSU has become quite innovative. It's -- there's a saying 
from a movie called "Starman. " It's: "You people on Earth are 
at your best when things are at their worst." 

And you look at the nature of the Board itself. We 
have researched intensely. And the three of us came on the 
Board after hikes had already been voted in. But looking at the 
Presidency, looking at the Chancellor's Office and their 
extraordinary effort to create Town and Gown, to get other 
sources of funding, and still, with an incredible shortfall in 
funds, found it probably the most efficient way to still allow 
the same quality of education be provided. 

One thing that is important for people to know is 
that this funding goes directly back to education, and one-third 
of it goes back into student loans, which is imperative when 
they're talking about access, and having the person, the 
student, who is less financially capable of going to school, 
there is a return of monies available. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're providing loans? 

MS. OTOMO-CORGEL: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: What about employment for those who 
can take advantage of it, on or off the campus? 

You know, our school system is for the students. We 
have to have adult supervision along with it, I suppose. Like 



69 

here in Sacramento, we have to cut back. 

Are there areas we should be cutting instead of 
discouraging students from attending because of the fees they 
can't afford to pay? After all, that's the primary function of 
the system, is to provide education for the students if they 
want to take advantage of it. 

Do you ever think of cutting somewhere else? Like 
some of your salary that you provide for the administrators, 
which are out-of-this-world; you know that. What can we do, 
other than to raise fees, and tuitions, and everything for the 
students, without telling you we don't need you folks or the 
instructors, either? What are we going to do to help those 
students remain in school or attend school? 

Loans you mentioned. Perhaps jobs between classes, 
and so forth. We've got to do something to keep these young 
folks in school . 

MR. HAUCK: Just let me add one thing, Senator. 

There isn't one of us that wants to raise fees. And 
we are doing a fair amount, I think, to seek to provide 
additional funding in the CSU system from sources other than 
student fees . 

In 1993, through the efforts of a range of people — 
presidents of the colleges and the universities, and other folks 
in the CSU system -- we raised $109 million of non-student fee, 
and non-General Fund money. 

Now, I know that you're aware that $100 million in 
our world of billion dollar budgets is not a lot of money, but 
it's a start, and it's clearly important for us to continue to 



70 

do that. And the Board, as well as the Chancellor's Office, has 
put in place a formalized system for continuing to raise even 
grater amounts of money outside of increasing student fees. 

We're going to make every effort possible to continue 
to do that, and to continue to bring as many students into this 
system as possible. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are these students facing additional 
fees this coming year? 

MR. HAUCK: I think that's yet to be determined, 
Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you feel like we're going to have 
to do it again? 

MR. HAUCK: To answer that, I'd have to be able to 
tell you how the state budget is going to come out at this 
stage, and I just can't do that. 

SENATOR AYALA: We're going to cut back on, probably, 
Board members, or something, so we can afford you. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR AYALA: I understand your problem, and I just 
wondered if you were doing something to address that issue, 
which I'm very concerned about. 

MS. THAKAR: Senator, I'd like to add that also the 
funds retrieved from the fee increases are also used to add 
courses, so that we are bringing as many students as the funding 
will allow us to do. 

SENATOR AYALA: Adding courses that you'd normally -- 

MS. THAKAR: No, Ms. Corgel had mentioned that the 
funds that are realized from the fee increases are used for 



71 

financial aid for students whose families cannot afford the 
fees . 

A part of those same funds are used to add courses 
where they may be needed in order for students to fill out their 
schedules . 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'd like to comment on the 
fees, too, to all three of you. 

I would urge you to communicate more frequently with 
the Governor. I've told this to other nominees. 

I think the Governor's a very decent man. He 
inherited a terrible situation, and he did some wonderful 
things, especially in the first year, to try to meet the 
problem. But he needs help from faculty, and from Board 
members, and from us, and the business community, to create a 
climate that reverses the climate we've had for years, and that 
is the worst word you can utter in the English language: 
taxes . 

Now, when I graduated from high school in a working 
class district in Oakland, I was the only one who went directly 
to UC. Everybody else went to work. And I've been grateful to 
my classmates ever since, because they financed my schooling at 
UC. 

And I've always felt that it was a duty to the public 
to continue the commitment that we've had for the century, and 
which we seem to have lost lately, to pony up the money that's 
needed. It's for all of our children and all of our 



72 

grandchildren . 

If the Governor doesn't get some encouragement from 
people like you, whom he appoints, where ' s he going to get it 
from? That encouragement might include pounding on the table 
when you have a meeting with him. He's a very reasonable and 
decent person, and he'll listen. 

But he's constrained. He tried it in his year. He 
approved a tax program to help make up part of the shortfall, 
and he got into big trouble with his own party, and they 
threatened to -- well, they told him they were not going to 
endorse him for re-election. So naturally in his second year, 
taxes were simply not even negotiable. Didn't even talk about 
them. 

But if there ' d been a different climate, you wouldn't 
have had to raise these fees like you're doing every year to an 
enormous amount. You might as well privatize all our schools 
and colleges. We're fast turning our higher education system 
into a private school system, even with the part that you give 
for financial aid. The figures show at the Cal . State level 
thousands of students just fail to show up, and thousands who 
were planning to go to the Cal. State system simply didn't sign 
up because of the staggering increases in fees. Same thing's 
happening at UC . This latest increase for UC, I don't know what 
it's going to do; you know, what kind of an impact. 

So, I would urge you, in addition to what you 
deliberate on in your meetings, you ought to take this up. Just 
say it's not carrying out the California tradition. 

We like to talk about our marvelous university 



73 

systems, both UC and Cal. State, and it's still one of the best 
in the world, but I think one of the big secrets of its success 
was , both systems were open to everybody who had the grades . 
And they didn't have to break the bank of the family to go to 
school. Now they do. They either do that, or they go out and 
put the family in hock. It isn't just student loans. Parents 
get loans; uncles and aunts get loans; godfathers get loans to 
help people get through school. It shouldn't be that way. 

It's a public responsibility, and we haven't been 
educating the public on the economic benefits to California, to 
say nothing of culture and all these other things, trade, and 
commerce, and so forth, enormous benefits that we get back 
directly. For every dollar that we spend on the system, we get 
much more than that back. 

And it's been swept up in this tide of, "I'm not 
going to go for a tax no matter what." We're having trouble 
with some Members right now saying, "We're not going to go for a 
tax to help repair the damage in Southern California." 

We're fast becoming a state of isolated individuals 
who don ' t seem to give a damn about the rest of the people in 
our community. And we're not treating our students right. I 
think it's abhorrent that we've had these successive increases, 
year after year. 

And now this new policy of tying it -- making it a 
tuition instead of a fee that goes for other costs, and relating 
it to the cost, a certain percentage of the cost. Your program 
now is one-third of the cost. I guess before long, it'll be 40 
percent, and then 50 percent. That's the way it happened in 



74 

other states . Once they broke that dam and the water came 
rushing through, those costs just escalated. 

And the net result is discouraging young people, who 
are well qualified and have the grades, from taking advantage of 
the system. A lot of them are going out of state to schools 
that we used to consider inferior compared to ours in other 
states, close, across the border in Nevada and other states, all 
over the place. They're fleeing our state. They're refugees 
from our state because of these horrible policies. 

I would urge you to give that a lot of thought and 
encourage the Governor. I think he'll do it if he senses that 
people want it. But all he's been hearing is negatives: don't 
do that, don't do that. So, he's kind of trapped. He's only 
one person, and he needs a lot of help. 

I would encourage all of you to refocus on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Is there anyone else here who would like to testify? 

Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

I had something that was no earth-shattering 
question I was going to ask you. 

But I want to preface that by saying how much I 
appreciate the words of Senator Petris, who, once again, has 
exhibited his great introspection and reasonableness in making 
decisions of the nature which face all of us here every day. We 
so frequently, particularly I as a Republican here, hear so many 
comments from other Republicans who look askance, I guess, at 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



75 

the Governor because things haven't just really bounced along 
like they did back 10 years ago, and there's very good reason. 
You know, 10 years ago we didn't have the fires, the quakes, the 
floods, the landslides, and the riots, all within one term. But 
the Governor, I guess, was just lucky. He got them all. 

So, I do, Senator Petris, I really do appreciate 
that, but it's nothing unusual for you. You're always that way, 
and I'm most appreciative. 

What I wanted to ask you was, have any of you been to 
California State University, San Marcus? 

MS. THAKAR: Not yet. 

MR. HAUCK: Not yet. 

MS. OTOMO-CORGEL : No, not yet. 

MR. HAUCK: We just — actually, today we saw a real 
good video on the development of the campus. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, I would like to take this 
opportunity, on behalf of President Bill Stacy, Dr. Stacy, and 
the Senate, to invite you down. It would be delightful to have 
you, and I ' d be delighted to be your host. So, keep that in 
mind, if you will. 

MR. HAUCK: Senator Roberti, can I just add, I know 
this is not proper, but I loved Bob Moretti, and I know that you 
were his seat mate. And I know how he felt about you. 

Your service to the State of California has been 
fantastic. Bob's was, too. I wish he'd been able to give it 
more time, but I want to add my -- it's not congratulations, 
it's just, I guess, thanks for the service. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's very touching. Thank you 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



76 

very much. 

I was his seat mate. I learned much about how to be 
a Legislator from him. 

The only thing I didn't learn from him was, he was an 
inveterate smoker -- 

MR. HAUCK: And chocolate eater. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — and chocolate eater. I learned 
that. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, he was a great mentor and very 
much missed. 

In my district, Senator Craven mentioned San Marcos. 
As you know, I represent the Northridge campus, or two-thirds of 
it, both geographically and, unfortunately, maybe physically 
now. 

I certainly commend its rebuilding to you as a first 
priority of your efforts as well as our efforts. 

MS. 0T0M0-C0RGEL : President Wilson yesterday showed 
us the devastation. Still you hear, but when you see what has 
happened, it's overwhelming. 

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, we'd like to 
thank you for walking through that campus . We heard you were 
there, and it means a lot to the people and to the support. 
It's just uplifting that you would do that. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. That was between 
aftershocks . 

But they have a command center there that is awesome, 
very efficient. The use of security personnel from the other 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



77 

campuses who all came in on a cooperative effort was amazing. 
So, CSU is doing something very right as far as pulling together 
and, through mutual efforts, making the best of a very, very 
dire situation. 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Craven moves that 
Mr. Hauck, Ms. Otomo-Corgel, and Ms. Thakar be recommended to 
the Floor for Trustees of the California State University. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Roberti . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is five to zero; the confirmations are 
recommended to the Floor. 

Thank you and congratulations . 

John T. Knox, Member of the Board of Directors, 
Hastings College of Law. 

We'll ask you why you feel you're qualified to assume 
this position, but that's almost gilding the lily. We know you 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



78 

so well, and we know your ability so well. 

MR. KNOX: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee. 

I've been serving for the last 12 years on the Board. 
I was appointed right after I left the Legislature in 1980. 
I've enjoyed it. It's been interesting and, as they say in 
education, challenging. 

I'd like to continue my service, and Governor Wilson 
was kind enough to reappoint me for your consideration. 

We have a lot to do at Hastings. Legal education is 
at a turning point, I think, in our society. This is one of the 
largest publicly operated law schools in the country. It has a 
distinguished faculty, and as the years have passed, has 
increased in its prestige. 

There are a lot of issues in legal education, and the 
tuition issues that have been mentioned earlier are tacking us 
just as well; we have to deal with those. We have tried at 
Hastings over the years to provide, through our Legal 
Opportunity Program, opportunities for poor, disadvantaged, and 
minority students that, frankly, other law schools have not 
provided. We are continuing with that program in very difficult 
economic circumstances and plan to do that, and I want to be 
part of that. 

We have problems of logistics, of property dealings, 
and other things that I'm interested in and want to see 
concluded. 

So, I would be pleased to serve an additional term. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Knox. 



79 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Craven moves . 

Is there anyone in the room in opposition? Support? 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Roberti . 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is five to zero; confirmation is recommended 
to the Floor. 

MR. KNOX: Could I say, Mr. Chairman, that you and I 
served together in the Assembly, and later, when you moved over 
to the Senate, and I've admired your work. I think you've done 
a magnificent job over the years in keeping this as one of the 
great deliberative bodies of the United States. 

I wish you well in the future, and I may have to join 
Willie's committee. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, thank you. From you, 
it's very much appreciated. 

Ms. Ana M. Olivarez, Warden of Deuel Vocational 



80 

Institution, Department of Corrections. 

Ms. Olivarez, you're the last of our appointees, but 
not least. It's very good to have you with us. 

MS. OLIVAREZ: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll ask you why you feel you're 
qualified to be in this position? 

MS. OLIVAREZ: Thank you very much. 

I come to you today with more than 20 years of 
experience in state government. I'm on my 21st year. Fourteen 
of those years have been in the Department of Corrections. 

I've also worked in supervisory and managerial 
positions at the California State Personnel Board, the 
California Energy Commission, and the Department of Health. 

Prior to assuming the duties of Warden about 18 
months ago, I acted for six months as acting Warden prior to the 
Governor's appointment. I've also served as Chief Deputy Warden 
of the State Prison in Susanville, and Associate Warden at 
Folsom State Prison. And I've also worked as an Associate 
Warden in the Prison Construction Program. So, I have a variety 
of experience that I bring to the position. 

My formal education, I have a Bachelor's Degree in 
psychology from the University of California at Davis, and I've 
also completed a number of graduate courses in administration of 
justice 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Olivarez. 

Is there anyone here in the audience in support? 
Please come forward. 

MR. SEARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee 



81 

Members. Again, I am Frank Searcy, Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association President. 

Ms. Olivarez is highly supported for this 
confirmation by this Association. As she has stated, her 
academic qualifications are highly desirable and fit very nicely 
into her position. Her varying experience in state service, and 
administration of the prison, also with the State Personnel 
field, and not to mention also the planning and construction, so 
you can see that she has a varying of experience in that area of 
the prison system. 

Again, she has, for the last few months, been in an 
institution that at times is somewhat not easy to run due to the 
problems that the inmate population presents. However, she has 
been highly, highly successful in dealing with problems there. 

So again, this Association strongly supports her 
confirmation. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Anyone else? Please come forward. 

MR. WARE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm 
Jim Ware, Special Projects Manager for the Department of 
Corrections . 

I'm here on behalf of ABCW and also Bishop Leon 
Ralph, who was unable to make it up. We have a letter before 
you expressing strong confidence in both Warden Olivarez and 
Warden Marquez, and we strongly support them. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Is there anyone here in opposition? Please come 






82 

forward. 

MS. ORTEGA: Thank you, Senator Roberti, Honorable 
Senators . 

I'm here to strongly oppose the confirmation of Ana 
Maria Olivarez. 

My opposition against her is a Superior Court 
decision where she was involved in a racial and sexual 
harassment decision that went on for 12 years -- that has been 
going on for 12 years. It was supposed to be settled on 
January 6th, and I submit this to the — it was supposed to be 
settled on January 6th, 1989, before Superior Court, Honorable 
Joseph De Cristoforo. 

The agreement was that I was coming back to work for 
the State of California. And no one, not Ana, not Nora 
Brusuelas, not Antonio Aguilar, no one in the State of 
California was going to impair or obstruct my employment with 
the state. 

That has not happened. Yesterday, I received another 
adverse action, and this is state policy. And I'm talking to 
you because the Department of Corrections has spent hundreds and 
thousands of dollars in sexual harassment lawsuits throughout 
the last years. They settled a case for 500,000 where they 
could have taken care of it for 30,000 in federal court. They 
settled a case for 480,000 on sexual harassment who was a person 
that did her background check. 

Mr. James Gomez, who is here in the audience, has 
promised to you several times before this body and other sexual 
harassment hearings in the Legislature that this will stop. 



83 

Well, if it has stopped, I wouldn't be here today. 

This goes back from 1981 to 1985, where she was the 
Hispanic Project Manager of the State of California. And we're 
both Hispanics. We are both female; we're both the same age. 
We even have the same name. We're both educated. We're both 
competent; we're both educated, and we both have worked with the 
Hispanic community for many years . There ' s only one exception 
between her and me; it's that I stand up for justice, and she 
supported a corrupt system. 

My testimony before the judge was that the State 
Personnel Board was corrupt. Was corrupt because they had six 
years to take immediate and corrective action to correct the 
sexual harassment and they failed to do that. And Ana was the 
first person that I contacted in 1981 as a new employee when the 
harassment started. As it anticipated [sic] in '82, I still 
contacted her, and we met for five hours at her aunt's house, 
and I told her everything. At that time, all she had to do was 
pick up the phone, write a memo, and say, "What's going on at 
the Department of Finance?" She didn't do that. 

I got fired. Went to the appeals hearing. And the 
day before I'm going for my appeals at the State Personnel 
Board, I met with Cristina Cervantes, who was President of CAFE 
of the State of California, a civil rights organization. And 
she says, quote, "Ana told us not to help you because you were 
flunking probation at the Department of Health Services -- I 
mean, at the Department of Finance." 

My records in the courts will show that I had 
satisfactory work performance and outstanding work performance 



84 

in my state service. The records will also show in Superior 
Court that they settled — that they settled, and I was going to 
come back to the State of California, and nothing was going to 
happen to me again. 

Unfortunately, what the court orders say and the 
judges say is not what bureaucrats do or what state officials 
do. And maybe she had nothing to do with this one, but I 
seriously doubt it, because at that time, again, I say, she has 
had six opportunities — '81, '82, '83, '84, '85 — before I 
name her in my Superior Court lawsuit. And because -- it's 
right here. It was settled before Judge De Cristoforo. 

At the State Personnel Board on April the 5th, 1985, 
Senate Rules asked for an investigation into my case because I 
had been fired twice by the same individual. This individual 
was Lottery Director, Chon Gutierrez. And I testified against 
him here at this confirmation. He went ahead and got confirmed, 
and thank God for justice. Thank God for the judges that found 
him guilty of sexual harassment, and thank God for Pete Wilson, 
who had the guts to fire him for mismanagement. 

It's sad that we have to come and oppose our own. 
Chon Gutierrez is Hispanic. Jose Alvarez is Hispanic, 
administrative law judge that ruled against me. Ana Olivarez is 
an Hispanic female. 

And throughout the legal system, everybody kept 
asking me: why would your own discriminate against you? 
They're all Hispanics. But the evidence will show, and you have 
it right in front of you, because I filed and I did name the 
individuals. I tried everything in state government to resolve 



85 

the issues. I've called you; I write the letter. I did the 
research to avoid costs to the taxpayers of the State of 
California. 

But nobody listens. No one has listened, except Pete 
Wilson that fired Lottery Director, Chon Gutierrez. 

I named a person by the name of Antonio Aguilar, and 
I'll ask you, Ana, do you know him? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You have to ask that through the 
Chair. 

Why are you asking about him? 

MS. ORTEGA: Antonio Aguilar was hired by Nora 
Brusuelas, who is the Department of Corrections discrimination 
manager. She's a CEA I, I believe. 

Ms. Brusuelas and Ms. Olivarez have a long 
relationship, a good, I would say, 10-15 years of friendship, 
plus working relationship. 

Mr. Aguilar filed against me, a request to file 
charges, meaning another adverse action against me, because I 
named him in a civil rights lawsuit on sexual harassment. 

All of this was presented to Faith Gagan, the 
Attorney General. She had copies of everything, and Ana has 
known for a long time that this was in the process. 

So, Mr. Aguilar files request to file charges. The 
Department of Health Services goes ahead and investigates for 
nine months, and goes ahead and does an adverse action against 
me, a suspension for a month and a half. And here she is, 
trying to get a job for $80,000 a year, responsible for many 
employees, responsible for civil rights, responsible for women 



86 

on sexual harassment. Responsible for inmates, responsible for 
Hispanics . 

And I would like to ask, what gives this person, Ana 
Olivarez, Mr. Gomez, or anybody in the State of California to 
violate the Constitution, to violate court orders, to violate 
this policy of the State of California where sexual harassments 
should not be something that should be used in an adverse 
action? Should not be something -- it is unlawful. It is 
reprisal. It is harassment for somebody to take action against 
somebody that has exercised their rights. That's in every 
federal civil rights, Constitutional law. 

They're educated. They know better. 

And here is the manager of the Department of 
Corrections, who is her best friend, a close friend, they 
socialize together, they go out together, taking -- and her 
employee taking adverse actions against me. It is a waste of 
taxpayers' money. We can't afford that in the State of 
California. 

If you're going to establish policy that protects the 
individual, let's start with her. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Ortega. 

Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? 

Then Ms. Olivarez, you can conclude, and you might 
address the question that Ms. Ortega raised regarding your 
understanding of your relationship with Mr. Aguilar, among other 
things . 

Senator Petris has a question. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many individuals have you filed 



87 



charges against for sexual harassment, and are they in your 
particular work area? 

MS. ORTEGA: They were, Senator. Not any more. 

SENATOR PETRIS: At the time of the filing, they 



were? 



were . 



MS. ORTEGA: Yeah, at the time of the filing they 



SENATOR PETRIS: Are they fellow employees? 

MS. ORTEGA: They're the Director — Deputy Director, 
Department of Finance, Chon Gutierrez. He fired me twice for 
complaining of sexual harassment and racial harassment. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Against him? 

MS. ORTEGA: Against him and a supervisor. And the 
Superior Court decision's right in front of Senator Roberti. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And the Court has made a finding 
that — 

MS. ORTEGA: They made a finding — 

SENATOR PETRIS: — each of them was engaged in 
sexual harassment of you personally? 

MS. ORTEGA: Yes, it was 14th Amendment, United 
States Constitution. It's Ernestina Boiemia Boyen vs. City of 
East Chicago, Indiana [sic], United States Court of Appeals, 7th 



Circuit, August 28, 1986. They drew a parallel as to what the 
case looked like from — so that's what my case is based under. 
Then I was the first one in the State of California. 
Mary Lavardo, who's now an attorney, was the first one on sexual 
harassment, and she settled out of court for 100,000. And I was 
the first one, unfortunately, because no one did anything for 



88 

all those years, to settle on racial and sexual harassment, 14th 
Amendment, United States Constitution. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did you file in the state court or 
federal court? 

MS. ORTEGA: I filed it both, but I did not know this 
one would go into settlement, that they force you to settle. 
You know, if you have any pending actions against other people, 
they force you to settle. And at that time, I was unaware that 
— I knew that Mr. Collie was semi-retired, almost retired, but 
I was -- probably he knew, and he didn't want to share that he 
was also dying of a tumor. And so he — he suggested, he told 
me to settle, take the money, you know. You proved your point. 
He died; he passed away last year. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Olivarez. 

MS. OLIVAREZ: Senator, would like me to recount the 
events, or what would you like? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: As best as you can, to respond to 
the point which Ms. Ortega has made, that you did not respond to 
her accusation of sexual harassment, or that you apparently, 
according to her testimony, interjected yourself to say that 
nothing would be done in this area, or something, with other 
people who were in official capacity. 

MS. OLIVAREZ: Okay. 

The time that she's talking about, I was the Manager 
of the Hispanic Employment Program that was located at the State 
Personnel Board. That program does not exist anymore, but it 
did at that time. 

Ms. Ortega came to see me. She had some concerns 



89 

about her relationship with her immediate supervisor at the 
Department of Finance. She recounted some remarks that he had 
made to her which were of a sexual nature and very derogatory 
toward Hispanic women. 

I asked here at that time — I met with her several 
times, and as she indicated, one time she found me at my aunt 
and uncle's house down in Monterey Park and did come and spend 
five or six hours with me there. 

Unfortunately, the situations that she would describe 
were situations that occurred between two people with no other 
witnesses. I asked her, "Was anybody else there? Did anybody 
else hear him say this? When did this happen?" 

Well, the encounters that she described, there were 
no other witnesses. They were remarks that took place between 
her and — I never spoke to her supervisor. I only spoke to 
Ms. Ortega, so I don't know his side. 

But she — the way she described it, it was between 
two people. It was a "he said/she said" kind of a situation. 

I gave her my best advice at that time, which was to 
keep a diary, keep a journal of the events that would take 
place. That someone who would make remarks like that would 
probably slip up and do it in front of somebody else. And at 
that point, she needed to be alert as to who else would be there 
to hear the remarks, and to take note of the date and time. And 
I gave her my beset advice, and she went away. 

She came back a couple of months later and indicated 
that the Department was going to terminate her because she had 
falsified her application for state service. She had indicated 



90 

on her application for the position at the Department of Finance 
that she had a Bachelor's Degree, and in addition to that, that 
she had completed certain units in accounting administration. 

The Department of Finance had done a background check 
based on complaints that were brought forward by her supervisor, 
and they discovered that she did not have the degree that she 
said she had, nor had she completed the required units. So 
therefore, she did not meet the minimum qualifications for the 
position that she held at the Department of Finance. 

She came and admitted to me that she had a couple of 
incompletes that she had not finished, and she in fact did not 
have the units that were required or the degree. She asked me 
to be her advocate and to help her. 

I told her I did not have any jurisdiction, that a 
termination fell under the jurisdiction of the hearing office at 
the State Personnel Board. And working in the Affirmative 
Action office, I was there for administrative, bureaucratic type 
problems, and certainly not matters that would fall under the 
purview of administrative law judges. I am not an attorney, nor 
am I a judge. 

I gave her some advice then, which was to get an 
attorney. And I described the appeal process to her. Told her 
how to file, and recommended that, because this was a 
termination, and it was very serious, that she really needed 
competent representation and that an attorney would be best. 

She did appeal her case to the State Personnel Board, 
and she was not successful in her appeal. 

Ms. Ortega did file in a number of places, both with 



91 

the state and federal agencies, a discrimination complaint. And 
I, in fact, testified in her support. And I believe, I'm not 
certain what she has given you, but I believe what you have in 
front of you is the negotiated settlement agreement, which was a 
no-fault agreement between the Department of Finance and 
Ms. Ortega, wherein she was given an amount of money. 

Prior to that settlement, I was subpoenaed as a 
witness, and I testified in great detail about my conversations 
with Ms. Ortega. The administrative law judge asked me at that 
time what my opinion was of her case, and I answered that I 
believed that she was the subject of sexual harassment. 
Unfortunately, it was not a situation that could be proven. So, 
for that reason, I could not take it any further. 

Ms. Ortega did file a request to file charges against 
me with the State Personnel Board, and that was denied. The 
Board did, however, grant her permission to compete in civil 
service examinations, and I understand that she has exercised 
that privilege and is once again a state employee. 

I've not had any contact in any official capacity 
with Ms. Ortega since 1982. And all of my contact with 
Ms. Ortega in this regard has been in my official capacity as a 
manager in state government. 

MS. ORTEGA: May I respond? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MS. ORTEGA: The fact that she says — 

SENATOR AYALA: Can I interrupt for a moment? 

A lot of the things we're hearing here must have been 
hearsay allegations that we're hearing from whomever out there. 



92 

The point, is this the proper forum for this kind of 
a discussion? Have we investigated — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's a good point. We do get 
into these personnel issues on Corrections because they're a 
very volatile place, I guess. 

Let's let Ms. Ortega be able to respond. 

SENATOR AYALA: This is going to be a ping-pong sort 
of a thing, back and forth, and, you know, we have other 
business . 

MS. ORTEGA: Senator Ayala, with all due respect, let 
me respond to Ana's false testimony before you. 

The fact that she said that there was nobody to 
witness this, you have in front of you, and Senate Rules has a 
copy of that brief where there was eight employees that 
witnessed the sexual harassment. They were my co-workers. 

And thank God for them, that they stood by me for 
four years in the courts, risking their jobs, their livelihoods, 
their careers, so somebody could get justice. They happened to 
be black. They were all black. My attorney was black. 

And I spend 20 years of my life advocating for 
Hispanics and advocating for women so women like her could come 
up to that category of Warden. 

Let me just say one more thing. Ana had the 
opportunity in 1985 to conduct an investigation or provide the 
new hearing. That's why she was named in the lawsuit in 19 88. 
They did absolutely nothing. They had my case there for 15 
months, and Walter Brown and her did absolutely nothing. 

At the same time that they had my case, they 



93 

investigated Karen Holliston from Department of Corrections, 
sexual harassment, and Alvarez, the same judge that ruled 
against me, awarded her $120,000. This is state money, state 
time, state attorneys, public policies. 

Then she comes before you in 1994 and says: I have 
done an excellent job; I have done this; I have done that. 
Well, you forgot one victim on your way up. 

And she has known about this. She says she was not 
involved. She had opportunities after 1985. 

When I'm done with the administrative process, 
there ' s nothing else you can do but go hire an attorney and 
spend hundreds and thousands of dollars, and hours, weekends, 
holidays, Thanksgiving, vacations, whatever, to try to get 
justice . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Ortega, I appreciate the 
asperity of your remarks . 

If you have a quarrel, I haven't heard that it's 
necessarily against Ms. Olivarez. She did appear; she did 
testify in your favor. You may not have agreed with her 
interpretation of the situation, but I don't think that's reason 
not to confirm her. 

If you have a quarrel, it would strike me you would 
have it with those bodies that heard your case and not on the 
witnesses or the authorities that you called in to support you, 
who have to give evidence, or testify, or whatever the proper 
word is, to the best of their understanding of the truth. That 
doesn't mean that they are trying to harm you. In this case, it 
does appear she did, but it wasn't with the same interpretation 



94 

of the situation as you would like. 

MS. ORTEGA: Yeah, she told me to go to Chon 
Gutierrez. That was her advice. She said, "I have known Chon 
Gutierrez for many, many years, and I have a lot of confidence 
in him. " 

Obviously, the courts did not have that much 
confidence in him; neither did Governor Wilson, and he did fire 
me twice. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Would you like to conclude at all, Ms. Olivarez? 
Then we'll go to a vote. 

MS. OLIVAREZ: Thank you, Senator. 

You have in front of you my resume. I have extensive 
experience in the Department of Corrections as a Correctional 
Administrator, and I would very much appreciate the opportunity 
to continue my work at DVI . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Craven moves . 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 



95 



SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Roberti . 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

The vote is five to zero; confirmation's recommended 
to the Floor. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
5:53 P.M. ] 

--00O00 — 



yb 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

I c f. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / day of February, 1994. 




EVELYN' J . 
Shorthand Reporter 



243-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $6.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 243-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 
1:35RM. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

WAR 2 8 1994 

c > 

PUBLIC UUHAtfY 



244-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994 
1:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

S. KIM BELSHE, Director 
Department of Health Services 

JULIAN S. MARQUEZ, Warden 
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 
California Department of Corrections 

JEFF THOMPSON 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

SANDRA R. SMOLEY, Secretary 
Health and Welfare Agency 

RON E. KOENIG, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

JUDITH McGILLIVRAY, Deputy Directory 
Department of Corrections 

JAMES GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections 

JAMIE SEPULVEDA-BAILEY, Member 
Youthful Offender Parole Board 

ROBERTO VELLANOWETH, Private Citizen 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

S. KIM BELSHE, Director 

Department of Health Services 1 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Evaluation of Education Programs 

of Proposition 99 1 

Study by Centers for Disease Control .... 2 

Allegation of Request to Delay and 

Edit Report 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Contact with SENATOR WATSON 3 

Motion to Confirm 3 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER on Reason 

for Putting over Confirmation 4 

Committee Action 4 

JULIAN S. MARQUEZ, Warden 

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 

Department of Corrections 5 

Expression of Thanks to Committee 5 

Witness in Neutrality: 

JEFF THOMPSON 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . . 5 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action 6 

SANDRA R. SMOLEY, Secretary 

Health and Welfare Agency 6 

Statement by SENATOR PETRIS on Reason for 

Motion to Put over Confirmation 7 

Motion to Confirm 7 



IV 



INDEX (Continued) 

Committee Action 8 

RON E. KOENIG, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 8 

Background and Experience 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Determinate versus Indeterminate Sentencing ... 9 

Respective Merits of Each 10 

Elimination of Bias in Indeterminate 

System of Sentencing 11 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Governor's Authority to Review Parole Dates ... 12 

Time Limit for Governor's Review 13 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Benefits of Good Time Inducements for 

Prisoners 13 

Elimination of Good Time Credits 15 

Automatic Parole Dates 16 

Minimum for Murder One 16 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Factors Used in Determining Parole Suitability . . 17 

What Went Wrong in Polly Klauss Case 18 

Motion to Confirm 19 

Committee Action 20 

JUDITH McGILLIVRAY, Deputy Director 

Department of Corrections 20 

Background and Experience 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Number of New Prisons Sited 21 



V 



INDEX (Continued) 

Shift from Determinate Sentencing to 

Indeterminate Sentencing 22 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Boot Camp Program 2 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

How to Prevent Recidivism 24 

Adequacy of Drug Rehabilitation Program in 

Prison System 25 

Determinations in Returning Parole Violators ... 25 

California Compared to Other States vis-a-vis 
Recidivism Rates 26 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Departmental Study on Impact of "Three Strikes 

and You're Out" Initiative on Prison System ... 26 

Response by JAMES GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections .... 27 

Current Prison Capacity 28 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 2 8 

Question by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possibility of Federal Court Intervention 

Due to Overcrowding 2 8 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 2 9 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

State Personnel Board's Findings about 
Disproportionate Treatment of Minorities 30 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Number of People Supervised 31 

Gender and Ethnic Characteristics 31 

Target Goals 32 

Adequacy of Personnel Mechanisms 32 



VI 

INDEX (Continued) 

Motion to Confirm 3 3 

Committee Action 3 3 

JAMIE SEPULVEDA-BAILEY, Member 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 34 

Background and Experience 34 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

What Resources Are Needed to Help Prevent 

Recidivism 36 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possibility of Bringing in EDD 38 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Lack of Religious Impact 40 

Positive Statements 41 

Contact with ROP Programs 4 2 

Need to Build Pride in Young People 44 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Spending All Money on Incarceration 45 

Suggestions for Improvements 45 

Indices for Parole Readiness 46 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Tracking of Parolees 4 7 

Statements by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Need to Treat Causes rathern than Symptoms .... 49 

Lack of Discipline in Homes 50 

Need to Make Parents Accountable 51 

Motion to Confirm 5 3 



Vll 

INDEX ( Continued^ 
Witness in Support: 

ROBERTO VILLANOWETH 5 4 

Committee Action 54 

Termination of Proceedings 54 

Certificate of Reporter 55 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--O0O00-- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess our next matter is the 
Governor's appointees, and it begins with the appointment of Kim 
Belshe, which was discussed at the previous hearing. 

Let me just ask, we didn't request that she return 
today, but if you wanted to add anything to supplement your 

omments from the previous hearing, you're certainly invited to 
do so. 

MS. BELSHE: No, Mr. Chairman, unless there are 
dditional questions that Members might like to ask. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me inquire of Members. 

Are there any additional questions? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Since our meeting last week, it was 
Drought to my attention by a newspaper reporter that there was a 
tudy done at the request of your Department, probably requested 
Defore you came in, actually, for an evaluation of the education 
part of the programs of Prop. 99 on the tobacco, which we 
discussed extensively before. And there was an assessment made 
in the form of a report, but the reporter alleges that the 
report itself has not been released, and it's being delayed so 
that it can be edited, presumably by your Department. 

My first question is, do you know anything about 
this? Can you elaborate on it? That's all the information I 
lave . 

MS. BELSHE: I have -- thank you for the question, 
Senator Petris . 

I have not seen the article to which you're 



referring. I am aware, though, that there are a number of 
evaluations currently underway being support by Prop. 99 
revenues of the health education activities . 

I am not aware of us sitting on that particular 
evaluation, though I believe there is one particular study that 
is in the process of review within the Department, so that may 
be the one to which you are referring. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That was done by Dr. Tom Novatny, 
who's associated with the Centers for Disease Control in 
Atlanta. He was asked to do the independent study. 

Does that ring a bell? 

MS. BELSHE: It's my understanding that the CDC has 
funded an analysis of the Tobacco Control Unit and the 
management of those programs and activities, which is separate 
an explicit evaluation of the programs supported by Proposition 
99. 

SENATOR PETRIS: This reporter felt that maybe the 
request to delay and edit is for purging the report, taking some 
unflattering things out, which I personally feel probably isn't 
the case, but that's a normal apprehension that a good reporter 
would have. So, I thought I'd ask you, first of all, if you 
sven knew anything about it, and if so, what the real story is. 

MS. BELSHE: Well, I will certainly look into it. If 
it ' s an evaluation of our programs, certainly we want as fair 
and honest an assessment of how we're doing business as 
possible, so it's certainly not in our interests nor in the 
interest of the taxpayers to be tinkering with that. So, I can 
assure you, I'll take a look at it. 



SENATOR PETRIS: Check on it. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there additional questions 
from Members? 

Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to 
make any additional comments? 

I've had an opportunity to review the record from the 
previous hearing. Perhaps I might ask if Senator Watson has 
been able to reach you to try to schedule some discussions in 
Los Angeles with respect to managed care implementation? 

MS. BELSHE : Senator Watson and I had a discussion 
about a month or so ago on that point, Senator Lockyer. My 
staff has since followed up on a number of occasions to offer my 
presence whenever and wherever she would so choose. So, we 
continue to await a response from the Senator, but we remain 
available at her request. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's been less than a month that 
she's expressed some interest. 

MS. BELSHE: I will have staff follow up again, and 
I'll personally give a call as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven moves that we 
recommend to the Floor for confirmation. 

MS. BELSHE: I defer to you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: First time for me; you, too? 

[Laughter. ] 



MS. BELSHE: Actually, second. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I might mention that at the 
previous hearing, I think there was perhaps some confusion. 

Senator Petris was kind of doing a favor for me. I 
had asked that we put the brakes on a little bit if possible 
only for the purpose which I'm about to do of demonstrating the 
continuation of the bipartisan working arrangement that Members 
have enjoyed on this Committee and in this House. I was hoping 
to have the opportunity to vote "aye" on some of the Governor's 
nominees as they come before us . 

So, I appreciate your willingness to slow down a bit 
I guess it was misinterpreted by some as a new obstacle to 
confirmation rather than the reverse. I'm sorry for the 
miscommunication . 

We have a motion before us. Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MS. BELSHE: Thank you very much. I look forward to 



working with you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Marquez, I guess you, too, 
have had some opportunity to comment and testify before the 
Committee . 

I would hope we'll avoid repetition and redundancy 
just for my sake. 

It appeared, sir, that it left off with there being 
some question about the concerns of CCPOA. 

Would you care to make any further comments, or would 
you wish that I ask them if they — 

MR. MARQUEZ: I would just like to express my 
appreciation to appear before you again. And I'd like to thank 
Ken Hurdle and the Committee for looking into the issues that 
were raised. 

I think I was very complete in my testimony last 
week. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Thompson. 

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Chairman Lockyer, Members. 

Jeff Thompson, representing everybody's once favorite 
peace officer association. 

We apologize to the Committee for the tardiness 
wherein we raised the concerns last week. They were looked at 
on their merits, which we sincerely appreciate members of the 
staff looking into these. 

At this point, the Association feels the concerns 
were validly raised, and we're satisfied that they're being 
checked into and looked at. 

We have no reason to hinder the confirmation of 



Mr. Marquez at this time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for working with us in 
this way. 

Is there anyone else present that would wish to add 
any comments? 

Are there questions from Members of the Committee? 

SENATOR AYALA: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala moves the 
recommendation . 

Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thanks. 

MR. MARQUEZ: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Smoley. 

MS. SMOLEY: Good afternoon. 

First of all, I'd like to say congratulations to you 
in your new leadership position. You have a tremendous job 



ahead of you, and I wish you well in your endeavors, and thank 
you for doing that for the people of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. I've enjoyed working 
with you in the past. 

Are there additional questions from the Members of 
the Committee that they feel like they haven't had an adequate 
opportunity to raise? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I wanted to point out, since I made 
the motion for both Ms. Smoley and Ms. Belshe, that word came to 
me late in the day and I didn't have the opportunity. I should 
have taken the opportunity to apprise our other Members of the 
Committee, especially the Republican Members, and explain that I 
was going to make the motion. 

I'm sorry about that. I think it kind of startled 
you. Sorry I didn't get in touch with you at least a minute 
before the Committee, but better late than never. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: No problem. 

MS. SMOLEY: It's okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's just my reputation. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. SMOLEY: That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not entirely undeserved. 

Is there anyone in the audience that wished to add 
anything? 

What is the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move the confirmation to the Floor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion on the 
confirmation. 



Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Lockyer . 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Congratulations. 

MS. SMOLEY: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Ron Koenig. 

Did you come with anything prepared that you wanted 
to open with? 

MR. KOENIG: I was appointed first in '85 by Governor 
Deukmejian, and reappointed four years later, and I have just 
been reappointed by Governor Wilson. 

So, I am here for the third time before the Senate 
Rules Committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Obviously, we've seen a very long 
biography of you, and to ask you why you think you're qualified 
for the position would probably provoke a lengthy reading of 
your biographical accomplishments. 



But there are, I guess, questions from Members. 
Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Not really a question. 

I'm a little nervous about the use of the number 
three, third time. There's a very heavy atmosphere here that 
says: third time and you're out. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: I hope it doesn't prejudice you in 
this particular assignment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members that would wish to 
inquire of Mr. Koenig? 

Mr. Koenig, you might just reflect for me for a 
moment, if you would, as someone with long experience in 
Corrections, what it is we're correcting? That is, it seems 
like, perhaps, a misnomer for the Department. 

The determinate and the indeterminate sentences have 
both been the fad at different phases of your career. Do you 
have any general observations about which seem to be more 
appropriate from the perspective of doing your job? That is, 
the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches, and what 
your thoughts are about the current mixed system. 

MR. KOENIG: Yes, thank you. 

I particularly — of course, I work with the 
indeterminate, the life prisoners, murderers, both murder one 
and murder two, kidnappers, and several other violent offenders 
in the system. 

We sit -- we have a panel of three — made up of two 
members and a deputy commission who is a civil service employee, 



10 

We look at the individual violator, and we have -- we go over 
his background, his criminal background. We consider his social 
factors, how he was brought up. We consider the crime itself, 
the viciousness of the crime. We go into his post-conviction 
factors: what he's done since he's been in the institution; has 
he upgraded educationally and vocationally. And we also look at 
his parole plans, and then we make a decision as to whether this 
person is ready to re-enter society, is going to be a 
contributor to society instead of a violator again. 

And that's one reason why I like the "Three Strikes 
and You're Out." It's moving more of the violent crimes into 
the indeterminate area so that a board such as the Board of 
Prison Terms, people such as me, can sit and look at them, size 
them up, look at their backgrounds and so on, and make a 
decision on whether they're ready to be in the society. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess, Mr. Koenig, I didn't ask 
you precisely enough what I was trying to get it. That, 
perhaps, calls for reflecting on your pre-Board years; that is, 
when you were a law enforcement officer, and those other phases 
of your career, so you weren't working just with the 
indeterminate population then, but criminals in general. 

If you had any thoughts about the respective merits 
of indeterminate or determinate? It sounds like what you 
suggested is more indeterminate is, in your view, a sensible 
policy. 

MR. KOENIG: I think it's important that a board or 
panel of people look at these violators, particularly the 667.5, 
which is -- Penal Code — which lays down the violent offenders 



11 

within the system. These are people that we should look at 
their criminal background. 

As of now, there's many of them that we are not, who 
are determinate sentencing prisoners who are sentenced, 
automatically released when they've served their time. These 
are the type of people who have a violent past, who have 
committed several crimes since then, and then finally end up in 
the prison system maybe two or three times . 

Somebody really ought to be looking and saying, 
"You're not ready to get out yet. You have time that you have 
to program. You have to change from the criminal you were when 
you came in the prison system to where we're finally going to 
release you back to society. " 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you feel that the dangers or 
criticisms of the old indeterminate as to its arbitrariness and, 
perhaps, occasional racial bias have been eliminated in the 
current system? 

MR. KOENIG: I think so. Senator Nejedly, who was 
the author of the determinate sentencing bill back in 1977, we 
invited him to sit in on one of our hearings, the Board of 
Prison Terms hearings here, a couple or three years ago. And 
the Senator stated after he sat in the hearing that this was the 
type of hearing that, if we'd had that type of consideration in 
depthness that we go into the backgrounds, and the various areas 
that we go into, and the criteria we used, that we probably 
would never have gone into the determinate area. 

So, I think that was a real plus, in that we do -- we 
have a very extensive hearing. We make sure that before we 



12 

release that person, parole that prisoner, that he's done 
everything that we feel is necessary, and he's a good bet to be 
a productive member of society once again. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Koenig, Proposition 89 of 1988 
gave the Governor the right to revoke or change decisions of the 
Board of Prison Terms and the Youthful Offenders Parole Board. 

My question to you is, under what circumstances 
should the Governor have authority to review and inmate ' s 
established parole date? 

MR. KOENIG: I think it's important that the Governor 
looks at decisions that are made by his appointees, trusting -- 
if there's any mistakes made, it is another check and balance, 
is actually what he is doing. 

He's looking at it in depth. I presume he has an 
attorney that does this. He looks at all the facets that we 
make a decision on, and at times he points out that maybe that 
panel didn't give enough weight to the severity of the crime, or 
give enough weight or overlooked, maybe, his prior criminal 
record to the extent that it was a violent crime here. 

We do do four hearings a day, where it takes a 
considerable amount of time. And there's a possibility that we 
do overlook some facets that the Governor does see and sends it 
back to us. We sit en banc with the entire Board, and we go 
over that case once again. And if we see that, yes, the 
Governor was right, then we refer it to a recission hearing. 
Another panel looks at it, and then it goes back to another 
hearing. 



13 

SENATOR AYALA: Does the Governor have a time 
limitation when he can change the determination of your Board, 
or is it if you don't hear from the Governor, it carries out 
what the Board decides to do? 

MR. KOENIG: Yes, there is a time limitation on it, 
90 days that the Governor -- 

SENATOR AYALA: Ninety days? 

MR. KOENIG: I believe it's 90 days that the Governor 
can look at it, or must look at it and send it back to us. 

SENATOR AYALA: If you don't hear from him, that 
process continues? 

MR. KOENIG: Yes, that's right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You know, there are a lot of bills 
pending now on the release time, time off for good behavior, 
ranging from cutting it down to 15 percent to eliminating it. 

Can you give us your views? Maybe you could educate 
us. Why did we enact the program that offers this inducement? 
As I remember the current law, it's 50 percent. It was carried 
by a very conservative, get-tough kind of Legislator, Bill 
Baker, who is now in Congress, and signed by a get-tough 
Governor. 

Now that statute is under tremendous assault from the 
public because of recent events. 

Tell us, what is the benefit, if any, of having this 
kind of an inducement to the prisoners, instead of just making a 
fixed period of time and make them serve every single day of 



14 

that period? 

MR. KOENIG: I think there's a great benefit, 
although I'm not associated with the California Department of 
Corrections, we do work with them very closely. 

I think California can be proud that the California 
Department of Corrections has not had the riots that other 
states have witnessed. They have not had the problems within 
the Department that other states have seen. That's part of it, 
although good management and our correctional system -- our 
correctional officers are very well trained. 

The other reason is that these prisoners have 
something to work for. They're not going to get into trouble if 
they know they're going to lose good time. This costs them 
personally, and that's a very important factor in control within 
the prison system. That's one good reason for it. 

If they see -- if a prisoner sees that he can work 
for something that's going to benefit him, and good behavior is 
a good example of why giving good time, if they -- and the 
lifers are the same way. Once we give a date to a lifer, then 
we go back year by year, and we look at his progress each year 
that he's been in the prison system. Has he programmed? Has he 
stayed out of trouble, received no 115s? That's a disciplinary 
within the CDC system. Has he participated in self-help, and so 
on down the line. 

And we can give four months' good time, 
approximately, or more or less, depending on the panel. And we 
look at that, and they know this. The prisoners know this. The 
prisoner knows that he'd better behave himself or it's going to 



lb 

cost him good time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So you think it works well? 

MR. KOENIG: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, you wouldn't support, or would 
you, a bill that either eliminated good time altogether, or 
reduced it far below what we have now? 

MR. KOENIG: I really haven't thought about it. I 
would have to look at the bill and see, you know, exactly what 
it said. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, the Governor has said, "I 
don't see why we should release prisoners because they've done a 
good job making license plates. That doesn't necessarily make 
them a good citizen or a good risk." He was oversimplifying, 
probably on purpose. 

So, without looking at a bill, I'm asking about the 
general notion: should we stay with what we have, or should we 
start reducing the amount of time off that we give? 

MR. KOENIG: Senator, in my area that I should speak 
to, we have the option. The panel has the option, like I said, 
going year by year. So, we can either give no time whatsoever 
of good time, or we have the option to give two months, four 
months, six months, whatever it may be. I think that's really 
the area that I could speak to. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So the time off is not automatic; is 
it? 

MR. KOENIG: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There has to be something 
demonstrated at the hearing that you have? 



16 

MR. KOENIG: That's right. In the lifer area, it's 
not automatic. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What about other areas? You don't 
handle other areas? 

MR. KOENIG: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Because the talk outside is, well, 
if you kill somebody and you're sentenced to prison for life, 
you get out in seven years. That's maximum, automatic. 

Is that true? 

MR. KOENIG: No, definitely not. And I — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you spread the word on that? 

MR. KOENIG: We try to. 

SENATOR PETRIS: People are telling me that all the 
time . 

MR. KOENIG: No, and this is not true. 

Since 1978, the matrix -- we go by a matrix which is 
stablished. The matrix for first degree murder is in the 20-25 
year, 25 to life. Murder two is in the 17, 18, 19 category, or 
0. 

We hear the prisoner. We give them their initial 
parole consideration hearing at two-thirds of their time minus 
13 months. So, the minimum eligible parole date would be -- for 
murder two would be 10 years, or 9 years, and then we consider 
them for parole consideration hearing. That's their initial. 

o, they're going to serve at least 9 years before they're even 
considered for parole. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the minimum for murder one? 

MR. KOENIG: It's 25 to life, so you take two-thirds 



17 

of that, 15 years, is when they would receive their initial 
parole consideration hearing. Actually, about 16 years, but 15 
years because we see them for their initial hearing 13 months 
prior to the MEPD, minimum eligible parole date. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MR. KOENIG: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Another question for Mr. Koenig. 

In your mind, what factors are most important in 
determining when an inmate convicted of one of those vicious 
crimes -- murder, rape -- is suitable for parole? What factors 
enter into your mind as the most important to determine? 

MR. KOENIG: It's really hard to say, Mr. Ayala, 
Senator. There are a series of factors that we go into, and 
4-t • s a culmination [sic] of all these factors that really look 
at. 

We look very strongly at the prior criminal record. 
If he's -- particularly if he's involved himself in violent 
offenses prior to the instant offense, and has had society's 
attempt to correct his criminality prior, in other words, he's 
been on probation, he's gone to Juvenile Hall, he's gone to YA, 
and then maybe a prior prison terms with violent offenses, then 
certainly he has a real strong strike against him of getting a 
Darole date. 

Then, of course, we consider the crime itself, the 
viciousness of that crime. Did he stab the guy 27 times and so 
on. And then his programming. Has he been behavior free since 
he came into the institution? Has he caused a lot of trouble? 



18 

Has he remained in the gang area? And has he upgraded himself 
educationally, vocationally? So, it would have to be a 
combination of factors. 

But prior criminal record has a very strong influence 
on whether we give a date or not . 

SENATOR AYALA: It's not clear in my mind, what fell 
through the crack in terms of this individual that murdered that 
little girl in Napa County someplace? What went wrong? His 
prior record indicated he was a vicious criminal, yet he kept 
getting released. 

Can you, in a short paragraph, tell me what went 
wrong? How can we correct that? 

MR. KOENIG: Sure. 

You have there a prisoner whose sentence was -- 
became a determine sentencing prisoner. And therefore, there 
was no control . Nobody looked at him prior to him being 
released from the prison system. That's what you have with the 
determinate sentencing. 

No one looks at a determinate sentencing prisoner and 
says, "You're ready to get out." We release people because they 
serve a certain amount of time. Their time is up and they're 
going to get out whether they're the most vicious -- still the 
most vicious criminal in the world, and there are many facets 
and indications within the system that the people who work with 
these prisoners all the time know that this person is not ready 
to get out, should not be released. And yet, they are released 
automatically. 

SENATOR AYALA: But the law did serve its purpose. 



19 

The law indicated that this individual had served his time for 
different crimes, and you couldn't help but release the man. 

MR. KOENIG: That individual, with his background and 
the crime, would never have been released today if he would have 
came [sic] under -- before the Board of Prison Terms. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Additional questions? 

Are there members of the public that wish to make any 
comments? 

Okay, sir, it looks like you're going to be okay. 

I just would briefly mention, with respect to the 
expansion of indeterminacy, as one who supported it for a number 
of years, and had three "Three Strikes, You're Out" bills vetoed 
by the previous Governor — two by the previous, and opposed by 
the current Governor, I'm disappointed that we're not about to 
embark on 25 years to live for stealing a bottle of cologne. 
But somehow, that will be your job, I guess, to try to sort out 
when the petty thieves are ripe for release. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 



Beverly. 



Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 



2U 



SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Lockyer 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. KOENIG: Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. McGillivray, good afternoon. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I would first like to emphasize 
that this is my first time, so I think I get two more. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, well, let's give it a try. 

What would you like to tell us about yourself and 
your qualifications for this position? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Well, obviously, you have my 
biography, but I do have a short description of my 
qualifications, if you'd like me to go through that. 

I have enjoyed a 20-year -- 28-year, believe it or 
not, career in public service; 25 of those years at the state 
level, and 18 of those years in the administrative or managerial 
positions where I've had the opportunity to participate in 
policy making on a number of public programs. 

I began my career in line positions with the 
California Youth Authority, supervising delinquent wards in an 
institutional setting. I moved from there to the Sacramento 
County Welfare Department, where I was involved in casework 
services to foster care children and foster placement. 

From there, I moved to the State Department of Social 



21 

ervices, where I spent 15*$ years and had the opportunity to 
move up in more progressively responsible positions and 
participate in large rescale-restructuring of several public 

ssistance programs, most notably developing the new 
federal-state partnership for the SSI-SSP program for adult 
welfare recipients, and for charting new directions in 
employment programs for AFDC recipients, which eventually 
developed into the GAIN program, and also for conceptualizing 
rate setting methodologies for AFDC foster care group homes . 

Approximately 8^ years ago, I moved from the 
Department of Social Services to the Department of Corrections 
to what was then the brand-new prison construction program. And 

or seven years, I worked first in a civil service capacity, and 
later as a gubernatorial appointee, in developing and 

valuating and acquiring sites for the new prison construction 
program. That was a very exciting time. 

Also, my responsibilities in that position included 
Dpening the doors to minority and women-owned businesses to the 
nany prison construction contracts that we had at that time and 
continue to have. 

When I left that position, I'm proud to say that we 
lad essentially completed the process of siting 20 new prisons, 

nd our minority and women's business enterprise program for 
prison construction was not only meeting goals, but we had 
become a model program for he state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was 20 new prisons in what 
time? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Twenty new prisons over a period of 



22 

time. That's sites. They're not all completed as yet, but that 
all started, really — that's been done since about '85; '84-85. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It was probably the largest public 
works project since the pyramids. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Yes, I believe so. 

Just by way of background, in case some of you do not 
recall, the position which I am seeking confirmation for today 
is a new position created by legislation enacted in late 1992. 
That legislation divided the parole authority responsibilities 
between the Board of Prison Terms and the Department of 

orrections. The Board kept the life prisoners and 
indeterminately sentenced felons, as well as mentally disordered 
offenders, and then the determinately sentenced felons came to 
the Department of Corrections. 

Because our function is an administrative hearing 
process, it's a quasi- judicial process, it was essential that 
our function be organizationally separate from the Parole and 
Community Services Division and their supervisory function. And 
so, the — recognizing that, the law provided that the new 
organization within the Department of Corrections be headed by a 
Deputy Director, appointed by the Governor, and, of course, 
confirmed by the Senate. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The job is disposition of the 
determinate sentencing release program. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: The job is, we are the parole 
authority for determinately sentenced inmates . Our primary — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're about to be put out of 
business . 



23 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: No, no, no, not for a while. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't mean that crime goes away. 
I mean that they're about to all shift to the indeterminate 
side. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Well, it probably -- if that -- as 
that occurs, as I'm sure it's going to, it will take some time 
for people to be sentenced under those new laws, to go away from 
determinate sentencing and then become indeterminate. 

So, I think we will be in business for sometime, and 
to the extent that the indeterminate sentences are more for the 
violent offenders or sexual predators, then we would still, 
presumably, have some determinate sentencing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, not under the initiative; 
petty theft, everything. There ' re some violent predicates for 
serious crime predicates, like drug possession. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I haven't read the whole 
initiative, but I understood that it was — there was still a 
split of determinate and indeterminate. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a few. 

Questions from Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: We have three Members on this 
Committee that have experience boot camp. That was when I was a 
kid. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Four, I worked here. 

SENATOR AYALA: Now, the inference is that boot camps 
are for, you know, undesirables and youth. 

How is that program really working? Is it really 
making a difference? 



24 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: In my position, I haven't — I 
haven't come in contact with the program, because we are dealing 
with parolees, and the people participating in the boot camp 
program are inmates . 

They do come out on parole, and then do a period on 
parole. And the program is somewhat new, so I think -- I don't 
know if we have -- at least I have heard how it's working as 
yet . 

SENATOR AYALA: You don't know how the selection is 
made for these people? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: My understanding is that there's 
criteria in law for the selection of the inmates to participate. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

I guess it's an appropriate time for me to learn 
a little from all these years of experience that show up. 

So maybe if you would, just kind of describe what 
you've learned about this prison population that you have to 
deal with, and what might be done better to not see them again. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Oh, I wish I had the answer to 
that. I wish I was wise enough to have an answer to that. 

Obviously, substance abuse is a big problem in our 
felon population. It's a big problem in the parolees that we 
see coming back into the system. Typically there's substance 
abuse connected with their parole violations. 

If we -- I believe we need to find more answers in 
the way of substance abuse treatment. We're, of course, 
constrained by the limits of knowledge about how to treat 



25 

people, and the programs available, and of course, the funds 
available to do that. But I think finding the magic answers to 
substance abuse will certainly go a long way to helping us with 
our correctional system. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there an adequate drug 
rehabilitation program currently within the prison system? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: There — my sense of it is that the 
Department's doing more and better at that. We have an Office 
of Substance Abuse that is coordinating a number of programs . 
There are community-based programs that the Department is 
working with, and I think there's progress. I've heard good 
things about some of the programs, that they are effective. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you tell us which ones work 
and which ones don't? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I don't think I ' d be the one most 
qualified to tell you that. I think other people in the 
Department can tell you how they're doing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you find that expert, will you 
have them send us their monograph, or whatever it is that 
students might want to look at? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a role in determining 
whether parole violators are returned, or is that part of your 
responsibility? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Our role — our role is to provide 
the administrative hearing. In parole violations, the Parole 
and Community Services Division acts very much like a prosecutor 
in determining whether or not they should charge someone with 



26 

violation of parole, and then evaluating whether or not they 
have the evidence to go forward. If they — and there are some 
cases of offenses where it is mandatory that they refer the 
parolee to us, primarily the violent offenses. 

So, they make the decision to refer, and then we 
conduct a neutral and detached hearing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're the judge. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: We're the judge, yes. We behave as 
the judge and determine whether or not, in fact, the testimony 
and the evidence shows that there was — there is good cause for 
revoking parole. And if so, how long do they go back to prison 
for, up to a maximum of 12 months under the law. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you been involved in 
comparisons with other states to try to understand why 
California seems to have a higher rate of return? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I have not had an opportunity to be 
involved in that. I know — no, I haven't had an opportunity to 
know that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from Members? Senator 
Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Couple of areas, one is on the 
prison population, extending that. The polls show that this 
'Three Strikes and You're Out" that's being circulated for the 
ballot is running about 80-85 percent with people in favor, so 
it looks like that's going to pass. 

Is the Department doing a study to anticipate what 
kind of impact that'll have on the population? 

People expect a lot more people to go into prison and 



27 

to stay there longer once they get there, in terms of space, and 
cost, and so forth. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Right. 

My understanding is that that work is under way on 
the several bills that are in progress. I believe our target is 
for having that available next month. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're going to issue a report or 
something so that we'll know? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Since this is not my area, I don't 
know if it's going to come out in a report. Can I defer to the 
Director? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. GOMEZ: I'll just say briefly, our hope is to 
have an actual estimate of the initiative by the third or fourth 
week of February. 

Everything's — there's three or four bills at least 
that revolve off of that. We think the initiative would be the 
highest number, and then depending upon the bills, we'll have 

reated the data base then to be able to match other bills. The 
Rainey-Burton bill, as an example, has a different population of 
who or what a "strike" is, what a second strike is, third strike 
is . 

So, the initiative is probably the big number at this 
point. The others are less. 

We hope -- I hope to see something in another eight 
to ten days, and I hope to get something to the Legislature by 
the 21st. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's an urgent need for good 



28 

numbers . 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, we are working diligently, but we're 
also working to try and come out with something that everyone is 
going to try to tear apart, depending on which side of the issue 
they're on. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're right. 

MR. GOMEZ: And my objective is to have the best 
analytical estimate that we can with nobody saying it's left, 
it's right, it's in-between; it's analytical. 

We want to provide that analysis, and then, however 
the politicians want to go in terms of their direction, that's 
fine. We want to try and get the best estimate we can. The 
numbers are big. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand the population now is 
about 179-plus percent of capacity. 

Is that figure about right? Is that the figure 
you ' re given? 

MR. GOMEZ: I use 184. 

SENATOR PETRIS: One hundred eight-four percent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If I may, at what point do you get 
nervous that there might be a federal court order relative to 
overcrowding? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I'll let him -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry. Maybe I should ask the 
question of Ms. McGillivray. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I'll let him get nervous. 

MR. GOMEZ: I live in a state of nervousness, Senator 
Lockyer . 



29 

I think that we are doing a hell of a job managing 
prisons at 184 percent. We're meeting the constitutional 
minimum throughout the system. We're trying to keep people out 
of their cells, occupied. We don't have enough program; we 
don't have enough work slots. 

We have some issues, obviously, that we would like to 
be doing a better job on: much more substance abuse 
treatment . 

But I'm not nervous today that we're looking at some 
major federal court suit in terms of closing down the prison 
system. But we're continuing to look at an 8,000-10,000 per 
year increase. And as long as the Legislature, and the 
Governor, and the public passes bills that send more people, we 
need the companion measures to build facilities that will house 
them. 

I think your work last year on AB 10, in which you 
interceded and tried to bring the drug treatment program as 
part of that bill, was a key change for the State of California. 
We were able, for the first time, to get legislation to build a 
therapeutic community within a prison, and that's part of what 
we're doing today. 

But as long as we continue to get the increase in 
population of from 8,000-10,000 a year, we've got to have the 
facilities to house them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Right. 

MR. GOMEZ: To the extent that we don't build those 
facilities, the likelihood of the courts coming in just raise 
exponentially. 



30 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, Mr. Gomez, this is probably 
not the right forum to debate this particular point, but I at 
least want to insert a disagreement. 

If we're going to over-sentence seriously, it seems 
we shouldn't over-build. Perhaps the court will have to do what 
the Legislature is unable to muster the will to do and enact 
sensible sentencing policies. 

But we'll talk about that at budget time. 

Senator Petris, I'm sorry. 

SENATOR PETRIS: On another subject, the State 
Personnel Board has made a finding about disproportionate 
treatment of some prisoners, notably African-American and 
Hispanic, in disciplinary actions taken against them, and so 
forth. And we've had complaints from outside groups that 
monitor this . 

Are you aware of that finding of the Personnel Board? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I'm aware of the finding of the 
Personnel Board '. I don't think that our function was a part of 
that. 

Are you saying in terms of employee discipline, or in 
the — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, it ' s a Personnel Board finding 
regarding employees and their treatment. So, it would be not 
the inmates , but the employees . 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Yeah, I'm aware of the finding. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's not your shop, though? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: However — no, I'm afraid it's not 
my shop. 



31 

And also, my division was not in existence and was 
not a part of that study. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We'll have to take that up with 
somebody else. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Any questions on parole revocation? 

SENATOR PETRIS: We're all concerned about that, 
because at almost every hearing regarding confirmation of people 
at high levels in the system, we get complaints. Not everyone, 
but frequently from either inmates or employees about 
unfairness, which, in an institution that size, I think is 
pretty much inevitable. Sooner or later, that's going to 
happen. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Obviously. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We need to be alert and try to 
overcome that and correct it whenever it happens . 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: I'm happy to say that in the little 
over a year existence of our division, we haven't had a problem 
with disciplinary action. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's fine. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many people are under you? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: We have — the division is a total 
of 55 positions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are the gender and the ethic 
characteristics of them? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: We are doing very well in terms of 
female representation. We're actually above parity on female 
representation . 



32 

We are doing very well on -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Parity means 50 percent? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: It's 44 percent, I believe, is the 
female, and we're about 7 percent over parity. 

We are doing very well in representation of African- 
Americans. We're well over parity there. 

We are actually over parity on Hispanic females. 
We ' re under parity on Hispanic males . 

We need to target Asians, and we do not have Asian 
representation . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are the numbers, the target 
or goals, with respect to some of these? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Overall goals? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: For labor force parity? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: For white, it's 60.4; for black 
it's 6.2; for Hispanic it's 23.6; and for Asian, 6.3; American 
Indian, .6; Filipino, 2.3; Pacific Islander, .4; and Other, and 
I'm not sure what that means, .2; and disabled, 6.3. And for 
female, it's 44. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And you're low in Asian, you 
mentioned -- 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: We're low in Asian and Hispanic 
male and disabled. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you feel there are adequate 
personnel mechanisms to address those in the near future? 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Yes, I think we can. We've had 



33 

very little turnover in terms of our administrative hearing 
officers. In the administrative area, we have had more turnover 
and we've been able to address some there, but I do expect to 
address it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Is there anyone present who'd wish to comment on the 
nominee? 

Questions from Members? What's your pleasure. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven moves the 
recommendation . 

Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MS. McGILLIVRAY: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's one strike. 

Okay, let's see, Jamie Sepulveda-Bailey . Good 
afternoon. 



34 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Good afternoon, Senator, and 
congratulations on your new assignment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Do you want to start, or do 
you want me to start? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why don't you tell us about 
yourself and why you should be confirmed? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: All right. 

Well, this is my second time around. You've heard 
three times, and one time. Well, I'm the two-timer. 

But I'm used to the question, why am I qualified to 
do the job, so I took the liberty of jotting down a couple of 
notes, of you'll allow me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certainly. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: When Governor Deukmejian 
appointed me to this post almost five years ago, before I took 
the position I did an awful lot of research and tried very hard 
to understand the job description and all that it stood for. 

I have kept in mind, over the past five years, the 
commitments that I made to the Governor, to the Senate, to the 
public, to the victims, and more specifically, to the wards that 
I deal with on a daily basis. 

And today, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 
I can say that I have kept those commitments, and in many 
instances, I have worked very hard to go beyond the job 
description. You see, I believe that to keep a balance in all 
that I do in my job, I stay focused, or I need to stay focused 
on the three areas that are crucial to my line of work. Those 



35 

three areas are the areas of prevention, punishment, and 
preparation, as I call it. 

In the area of prevention, I work very closely with 
the Youth Authority, with Parole Services, community-based 
programs, and specifically the minority communities that I 
represent, as they make up, as you probably are very much aware, 
the highest population base within the Youth Authority. 

In the area of punishment, I push strongly for 
programs that make the offenders accountable and remorseful. 
Such programs as Victims Impact classes, Gang Awareness, Victim 
Awareness, a crack baby program, and many, many community 
service programs. 

In the area that I call preparation, I believe that 
this is the component that needs to be used where it takes all 
of the rehabilitative tools that these young offenders are 
provided, and that helps them prepare for a productive, crime- 
free life style. 

Now, unfortunately, one of the questions I'm sure 
Senator Petris doesn't remember because I was absolutely scared 
to death when I was here five years ago, but Senator Petris 
asked me the question at the time: Do you understand that there 
is a high rate of recidivism within the Youth Authority; and if 
you do understand that, can you explain why? 

I don't think you remember that, but I'll never 
forget it, because at the time, I chose to be very fair and 
honest with my response to say: No, sir, I'm not fully aware; 
I'm sure I will know soon, and if you ever ask me again, I'll 
have the answer. 



36 

So, if you want to ask me today, I can give you the 

answer. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: But unfortunately, the final 
area that I call preparation, I believe, is the area that 
unfortunately has the least amount of attention due to the 
limited resources available, and I believe, therefore, is one of 
the main causes for the high rate of recidivism that we 
experience with parolees from the Youth Authority. 

So, given that little background of experience that I 
work in and have worked in for the past five years, I'm prepared 
to entertain any questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I think Senator Petris ' s 
question has come back. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Come back to haunt me? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you elaborate on it? What 
resources do you mean? Parole officers and -- 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I guess what I want to 
definitely highlight for anybody that's willing to listen, 
because there's an awful lot of discussion about boot camps, and 
about also some things that may be seen, perhaps, as panaceas. 
I don't see them that way. 

I'll tell you very succinctly that what I see on a 
daily basis, because we do 22 cases a day, okay, 22 cases a day, 
and I can honestly say that in my estimation, at least 80 
percent of all the young people that come before me on a parole 
referral hearing, I really believe that they think that they are 
truly ready for parole, and they really believe on that day that 
they're going to make it. 



37 

Unfortunately, I know more often than they know that 
they're not going to make it. And I know the reason they're not 
going to make it. The reason they don't make it is because we 
take them, and we house them, treat them, train them, and 
rehabilitate them in the Youth Authority. 

Somebody asked me, do those programs really work? 
And I'm here to tell you, the programs really do work. It's not 
the programs that are faulty. 

It's the follow-up work with these young people that 
is very faulty. The fact that we take these young people, we 
scrub them clean. We educate them. We counsel them. We 
program them to be successful human beings, and then we have to 
return them to their county of commitment; in essence, return 
them to the same garbage can where we found them. Return them 
to parents who are delinquent in all areas. Return them to 
nonexistent environments . 

You know and I know that these young people will 
never be strong enough, for the most part — there are a few 
that do succeed — but for the most part, to fight off the 
gangs, the barrios, the drugs, the garbage can that we found 
them in, if that's where they are returned immediately. 

I think that, perhaps, in looking at — and I know 
that you have a lot of influence as to what happens with these 
proposals on boot camp programs — my recommendation is that it 
go beyond what is being proposed for what's within the program. 
We go beyond that to what happens after the fact; what happens 
to these young people, or these adults, that go through these 
programs after they are released to parole. And I don't think 



38 

there are enough resources being put out there to clean up the 
environment that we have to return them to . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What you do? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I think that money needs to be 
moved around. I think there's an awful lot of studies that are 
being done, and I came in under the Commonweal Report. Maybe 
you're aware of, you know, back in those days the Commonweal 
Report very much was saying — and I see some highlights of that 
being brought out now — about perhaps we should take some of 
the resources from programs like the Youth Authority and turn 
them into community-based programs . 

And I don ' t know that it ' s the programs that aren ' t 
working. I think that there aren't enough resources available 
for these young people to go out. And I personally force them 
to get into them. They're age-appropriate for education. I 
force them to stay in an educational program while they're in 
the Youth Authority. I say, "You're age appropriate. You're 
staying in school." 

If they're beyond or questionable age-appropriate for 
school, then I make them go through vocational training programs 
or employability skills training programs. 

There aren't resources enough for them to follow-up. 
We refer them out to EDD, the Department of Employment 
Development, et cetera. But these young people — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When they're released, or when -- 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: When they're released on 
parole, we refer them to EDD. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why don't you bring EDD in to work 



39 

with them before they're released? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: They do. Unfortunately, the 
job resources are not tied out there. We need to work closer. 

If I could wish, and wishes came true, I would wish 
that we had a closer tie, a closer bond with the private sector 
I came from private sector once upon a time. I almost forget 
that sometimes, but I did come from private sector, and we need 
to lock them in a lot more. And they're willing to. I do an 
awful lot of public speaking, and they're willing to, if they 
know how, to interact. 

One of the incredible resources that I think we have 
available right here in state government is the California 
Conservation Corps, for example. I think that could be turned 
into an absolutely wonderful resource to transfer some of these 
parolees and say, "As part of your parole conditions, you will 
do X amount of time in training for vocational skills, et 
cetera. " 

You know, we're trying to get people off of welfare 
by job training them; let's try to keep some of these kids from 
coming back by supplying them with jobs or educational 
opportunities . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can't you do that under current 
law? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: It's not about the law, 
Senator, unfortunately. It's about resources. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's not a slot to go to? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: It's about when we parole 
them, we say, "Okay, I'm going to return you to X place, and 



40 

here are the conditions of your parole, and you will do it or 
you'll see me again, kid." 

And then, once they walk out there, they tie in, 
within 24 hours, with their parole agent. And the parole agent 
says, "Okay, here's what you have to do. Go do it." 

And the kid's out there saying, "You know, I don't 
even have a driver's license, and I have to go look for a job. 
And Bailey told me if I don't get a job within the next 60 days, 
man, I'm going to see her again." 

They just aren't there. And if they are there, they 
aren't very clearly defined. 

Having said all that, as you can see, I'm not excited 
about what I do for a living. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you. 

I was quite interested in what you had to say. 

I was also saddened by what you had to say. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Yes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Ordinarily, I don't react that way. 

But when you tell us that, of the people who may be 
put back on to the streets, or back into the neighborhood, only 
a small percentage of them are going to succeed and really turn 
their lives around and get back and be productive, and then you 
said things that I don't think surprised any of us. You said 
the families have a certain degree of ennui. They couldn't care 
less . 

There is no -- presumably this is sort of a no-no 
when we talk about government -- but there's no religious impact 



41 

in their lives, presumably. I have always felt that that had a 
tendency to guide people away from, you know, bad things, and 
move them in the direction of good. 

I don't know, you know, how far the sociological 
aspect of your job, your responsibility, or the public 
responsibility, goes. You know, those old words: Am I my 
brother's keeper? I think we have to think about that, and then 
we think, how long are we going to keep them? What are we going 
to do? What is the millennium? Where does it end? 

I don't expect you to answer that. I don't want to 
take Senator Petris ' s role here, so when you come back the third 
time, I won't be here then. 

But be that as it may, I hope you understand what I'm 
saying. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I certainly do. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I really don't expect you, you know, 
to have such omniscience that you know all of the answers. 

Is there anything that you could tell me, or us, that 
would make us feel a little better about the problem that we 
face? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I'd love to have days to tell 
you, because I'm always doing homework. I'm always doing 
homework . 

And I have come up with some incredible statistics 
that, if anybody were really paying attention to, we could move 
to the first "P", which is prevention. 

Just to give you some — if I may take a couple of 
minutes, just some mind-boggling statistics. You know, we used 



42 

to talk about the year 2000, which seemed, you know, in 1980, 
2000, that's a long way away. We're talking, what? That's six 
years away. 

So, imagine that in six years, the at-risk youth 
population is going to have an increase of over 30 percent. 
This is just the increase. What are we doing to prepare for 
that? 

Did you know that out of that statistic, 28 percent 
of all the at-risk kids will be of very limited English 
proficiency. What are we doing about that? What are we doing 
about that in the programs we provide within our settings in the 
Youth Authority and CDC? We don't have bilingual programs. We 
don't have bilingual educators. We are dealing with the illegal 
immigrants that are jails are getting full of. 

We're supposed to forget CDC. We're supposed to 
treat and rehabilitate, and then my job is to monitor and 
evaluate parole readiness, and I'm talking to a kid who can't 
even speak English, and yet I'm being told, "Mrs. Bailey, we 
have no resources. That's the best we could do. You guess if 
he's parole ready." 

Do you see what I'm saying? You know, I could go on 
with the statistics about what's going to happen with the 13th 
generation of population, and it's scary. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I appreciate what you said. 

Do you have any contact with the ROP program. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: With what, I'm sorry? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: The Regional Occupation Program. 
It's basically tied to school, and it's job opportunity in a 



43 

particular field where you sort of go to school, and then you go 
to work in that area. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I see. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Do you have any tie with those 
people? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Within the Youth Authority? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, the thought that I have is, 
when these people come back into the community, and they have 
basically nothing on which to lean, if they could be educated to 
do whatever it may be -- you know, they could press clothing, or 
work in a laundry, or knock out dents in fenders. They could do 
all kinds of things. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: There's a couple of really 
successful programs, unfortunately not enough, all over the 
state. One of them is called PIC, which is the Private Industry 
Council, that works very closely with our parolees. Another one 
is called VIP, which is Volunteers In Parole. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: And that is kind of their 
function, is to play a mentor role, a sponsor role, if you will, 
to help some of these young people be redirected. 

Unfortunately, it's not an organized structure that 
has the sanction of state government, or federal government, or 
whatever. So, it comes and goes with volunteers, as you know. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: One other thing, Ms. Bailey, that I 
want to say to you before you leave. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Ayala brought it up, and he 



44 

talked about Senator Beverly and myself, and Senator Ayala 
himself, about the boot camps. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Right. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, of course, you know what boot 
camp is. We don't have to tell you that. 

It has changed considerably since we were at that 
stage in our lives. We were just kids. 

But the one thing, it was a very brutish thing, to be 
very frank about it and not being benign. I mean, they did 
things that were outlandish, absolutely outlandish, and it made 
you so mad you could cry, and sometimes you did. And you were 
19, 20 years old, or maybe younger. But that was a part of the 
system. And you hated every day of it, from the time you got up 
at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, to the time you went to bed at 
9:00 o'clock at night. 

And yet, somewhere inside you during all of that, 
there was building up, commensurate with the antagonism, a 
pride. And one eventually overcame the other. Pride won 
always . 

And if we could build pride in these people, that's a 
good system. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I agree with that absolutely. 

And as I said, the boot camp program, particularly -- 
I'm not familiar with the CDC level, to be honest — but with 
our level of boot camp programs, they can be extremely 
successful. I just don't think they go far enough. 

And the only thing that is missing, as I said, is the 
follow-up program; what happens to the young people once they 



45 

get paroled. They become a parole, just like the other 
parolees. It's just that simple. There should be something a 
little different. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Bailey, we're about to spend 
all the money on incarceration, so I suspect the follow-up -- 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I think a lot of money could 
be moved around, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not when an initiative gets 
adopted, it can't. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: If you ever want to pick my 
brain some more, I have more ideas. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd like to hear from you. I 
think it's very interesting to learn whatever you learned in 
this job that you can recommend to policy makers' improvements. 

What else? Just move the money around? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: No, there's specific details. 
This isn't the forum, as somebody mentioned earlier, but there's 
an awful lot, I believe, that -- I don't think we're a 
give-up-itis society. I think that's what makes America what 
it is. We don't give it up. 

And it's so easy in an environment, a political 
environment, sometimes, to say, you know, this won't work 
because, and if you have this, then we can't have that. You 
want this; we don't have the money to pay for it so the answer 
is no. 

I don't believe that that should be the case. I 
believe the "Three Strikes You're Out" has an awful lot of 
merit, and yet I believe that it has to be structurally sound. 



46 

I think, you know, we've talked an awful lot about 
what's going to happen when the "Three Strikes You're Out" 
passes, and what is going to be put into effect. But along with 
that should be laid out -- the information should be laid out 
that says, "Now, here's what we're going to do to prepare for 
it. Here's how we're going to pay for it. Here's what's going 
to happen to the lifers. Here's the AIDS." 

I mean, teach the public. Educate them. Give them a 
lot more so they make sound decisions, not just reactive or 
knee-jerk, I think. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Frankly, I think the public would 
make wiser decisions than us if we could give them a choice. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I believe so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We may not have that opportunity 
to do it. 

Can you describe how you can tell? Is it intuitive? 
What are the indices for kids that you think or going to make it 
or not? Can you tell when you — 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Me personally or my job? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, your job, when you see the 
wards, and you have to decide: try this one; that one won't 
work. Can you tell us how you do it? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: There's obviously a format of 
information that ' s provided to us . It ' s a checks and balances . 

We don't have good time credits, by the way, in the 
Youth Authority. We have program credits. It's like a report 
card. They earn their programs or they don't go. 

In the adult system, they get good time. You're good 



47 

for a day, you get a good day off. With us, you complete a 
program, you get a program credit, and that's how they're 
measured. 

So, I believe that when the time comes, I go through 
all the evaluation of formalities, but the bottom line is, I'm 
in their face. I'm one of them. They can't deal with me on the 
basis of, "How do you know, lady?" If they want to talk barrio 
talk, I can talk barrio talk. You want to talk to me, I can 
talk to you. And I can start it, you know, you want to tell 
poor stories? I can tell poor stories. I never had a dad; I 
never had a dad either. 

So, I think you can bring it down to their level of 
measurement to see what the level of remorse is, what the level 
of commitment is to a future, their level of preparation. And I 
think that that ' s something that has to be measured quite 
succinctly, is their level of preparation. If I parole you 
today, I basically go into three areas: tell me who you were; 
tell me who you've been; and tell me who you plan to be if I 
parole you. 

And that's kind of the measures that I use. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can I ask, what kind of tracking do 
you do beyond parole? The youth goes out, he's on parole, so 
he's still in the system. But beyond that, is there any 
follow-up at all to determine what happens to the people who are 
released so you can measure the success rate? 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: The Youth Authority has some 
very automatic reports that they monitor all these things. You 
know, the population management reports that measure population, 



48 

that measure parole, that measure returns, and so on. 

I don't know that — and unfortunately, I don't 
believe, and if there is, I've never seen one -- I don't believe 
that there's a report that says, out of 100 that were paroled, 
these 30 went on to become this, and so on and so on. 

That would be a fascinating study. I love to hear a 
success story come up. 

The final, final end to a parolee is when they come 
before the Board for a discharge, and obviously, three 
categories, like in the military: an honorable, a general one, 
and a dishonorable. And it's a good news story to see a kid 
that started out to be, you know, tattoos all over the forehead, 
and the killer kid who was the leader of the whatever, who 
suddenly, you know, many years later, is coming before the Board 
to appeal to the Board for an honorable discharge because this 
is what he's done with his life, following up. 

And in going out in my travels across the state and 
speaking here or there, I've had parolees that have come up to 
me -- not that I've necessarily paroled them — that have come 
up to me and said, "You wouldn't know me, but I used to be a 
criminal, and I used to be a ward, and here's what I've done 
with my life. " 

So, once in a while you get the good news stories, 
but more often than not, we get the bad news. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Senator Craven, you almost made me 
cry all over again when you talked about boot camp. 



49 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Flinch is the word. 

SENATOR AYALA: I want to get philosophical for just 
a moment . 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Politicians and bureaucrats have a 
propensity for addressing the symptoms. And we don't have 
whatever it takes to go down to the causes of this issue. 

We've built more prisons, and we put more policemen 
on the street -- and I'm all for that. We've got to control 
what the problem is, but it's not resolving the issue. 

Crime is something that everybody ' s demogoguing 
today, including Ruben Ayala, by the way, and I want to know 
that we're treating the symptoms when we've got the Youth 
Authority, and we have more policemen, and we've got to have 
that. 

But when these people who are convicted of felonies, 
most of them are born nice, little babies. So, what happens 
between the time they're born and the time they're convicted of 
a felony? That's what we should be concerned with. 

Sure, we've got all these good programs for youth, 
and the program that you mentioned earlier about putting these 
people into the youth corps. I was the author of that bill, and 
it was designed to put these kids that have been convicted of 
borderline cases, to keep them from going into your 
establishment . 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, I don't know that I would support 
putting these people in there. They come out of Youth 



50 

Authority. It's for kids that haven't gone all the way yet; try 
to save them. 

But what are we doing about treating the causes? 
It's a socioeconomic problem. No one's doing anything about 
that. 

The first parents -- the first people these kids see 
when they ' re born are their parents . 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: The parents don't care. They don't 
understand. They don't give a darn. They grow up 
undisciplined. Then they meet their equals, and they form 
gangs, and on they go. 

I think it all started during World War II. Prior to 
that, the mentality was that women did work out of the kitchen 
-- without shoes, by the way. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: And pregnant. You forgot 
pregnant . 

SENATOR AYALA: And that was the mentality of the 
day. If women worked, men weren't men, you know. They had to 
get help from the wife to support the family, the macho thing, 
you see. 

And so, came World War II, and father was in the 
service. Mother had to work at a defense plant to make things 
go. She became Rose the Riveter. And for the first time, these 
kids are left alone at home. For the first time in the history 
of this country, they were left alone with no discipline, no 
guidance, because mom and dad were gone. 

So now, the next generation. These kids didn't have 



51 

any guidance or discipline, what of their kids, and on the line? 

So, I think we've got to go back to the basics and 
address the issue where it should be, with the parents. The 
parents must be held accountable -- 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: — for their kids, right from the 
beginning. 

And I don't mean going to watch Junior play football 
on Friday night, or going to a PTA meeting every three months. 
Every day they should be on top of these kids and teach them 
some discipline. 

Everybody talked about the boot camp being so tough. 
Let me tell you, when I got through with my folks at home, boot 
camp was a piece of cake. I really came from a discipline 
background, and I'm a better man for it, I think, today. 

And so, we've got to get down to where the problems 
exist. They don't exist with the Youth Authority or the prison 
system. We've got to have these. We've got to have more police 
in the street to feel safe, but that's not going to resolve the 
issue. The issue is deeper than that, and we don't seem to care 
to get involved to find out what's causing it. It may take 
generations before we get straight on it again, but we've got to 
start someplace, and we've got to go down to the core and deal 
with the parents who are made held accountable and responsible 
for the kids that they have. And that's where it starts. 
Without that — 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I totally agree. 

SENATOR AYALA: — forget about all the other 



52 

programs . 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: I totally agree with you. 

If I could just give you two food for thoughts in 
line with what you're saying. 

In the less than five years that I've served in the 
Youth Authority -- not in the Youth Authority, pardon me; I 
didn't mean that — the Youthful Offender Parole Board, I have 
seen something that blew me away. When I first came to the job, 
the largest population base within the Youth Authority was the 
black ward, followed closely by Hispanic, then by white, then by 
Asian. 

By the end of my third year, the start of my fourth 
year, there was a dramatic population shift. It is now 
primarily Hispanic, followed by black; fastest growing, Asian. 

I'm leaving that with you after you confirm me today. 
I'm leaving that with you, because I don't want to, you know, 
draw any major conclusions. 

But as a Hispanic woman who had latch-key children, 
who raised my kids for many, many years, until I found, you 
know, the guy back there that decided to take me in, he's out 
there someplace, but until that happened, I was the working 
woman with two kids trying to be latch-key kids, and doing all 
that kind of stuff. And there was a lot of morals and values 
that had to be implemented. 

So, I get outraged when I ask the question, I am a 
Hispanic mother with children, and I'm here to tell you, ladies 
and gentlemen, we Hispanic women do not give birth to more 
criminally oriented children. We do not, okay? And neither do 



53 

the blacks, or neither do the fastest growing Asians, whatever. 
That's the first food for thought that I leave you with. 

The second one is, how can you create or instill 
family values when you have children having children? We have 
the highest teenage pregnancy rate in my community, and in the 
black community, they have the youngest population base having 
hildren. How can we possibly — I don't know the answers. I 
know the frustrations. I don't know the answers, but it goes 
way beyond more prisons . 

We need more prisons for the public. Yes, we do need 
to punish the criminal. I totally believe they need punishment. 

Do I believe in rehabilitation of young people? Yes, 
I do. Does it go far enough? No, it does not. Is there a 
simple answer? No, there is not, but we've got to go back to 
basics. You're absolutely right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd only suggest that the problem 
of children having children isn't solved by starving them. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That seems to be the only 
recommendation we hear these days. 

I hope your efforts will be more humane and 
successful . 

Other questions from Members? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion on the 
nomination. 

I haven't asked if there are any members of the 
audience that wish to comment? Yes, sir. 



please . 



54 



MR. VILLANOWETH: After hearing all that testimony, 
I'm going to withdraw my comments. 

I'm in full support of the confirmation. 

I'm Roberto Villanoweth. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Okay, the motion is before us. Call the roll, 



Lockyer . 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 

MS. SEPULVEDA-BAILEY: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:57 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 



55 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

,__, ^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this ' day of February, 1994. 




V^ELYN \J. tylZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



244-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 244-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1994 
1:40 P.M. 



DOCUMFMTS DEPT. 

MAR 2 8 1994 
s J 

PUBLIC UbrtMriY 



245-R 



LES COMMITTEE 



GO 

ft 

CD 
O 



Z 

o 



d 
o 
o 



CALIFORNIA 



rg.^ b.5 g.g- 

g » g » 8 5° » 
I o ' g '■ I 8- 

S, r« E r/i 13 



fe CD 



n 



oo'H 



a I 2 



3? 8? 

I a - ^ ~ - 

!oOog3 

| 3 a 53 «• a 

°* e S e o 2 



a »• en °- S 

.§ p * « 2 

O T3 

*- o 



2 & 

p-g 

r* p 
Si 

CD "■ 

SL S 



rfl 



P 



•T3 ►d'O O 

^ o 5 ° 3 
8 5" g- 5- | 

-> 0> g 3 



T b 

' CD 

GO g. 

JL ^ 

CD* 

ft 

o 
a 

p 
5 
EL 



g 



O 

B 

o 

II 



O 

& 
o 



p 
a 
o- 



CD 



3? 

2- 
p' 



p 

3 



5. 
p 

w 

o 

es 

a- 
o 

id 



o 

3 

H 

CD 



£21 
o 



p 

3 

a. 



&• T3 



O 

CD 
CD 



o 

CD 
CD 



■^ CD 

CD 3 

M CD 

*0 OB 



on 

P 

CD 



o 

p 



a- 

' 1J o 
cd Jr~ 

3 3 



p 

o' 

3 

<Z% 3 

:. j£ P 



73 



ft 3 

c CD 

•a 3 
3 -° 

'= n 
p 



cr 

CD 



O 

o 

d 

o 
o 

Z 

o 



r 

O 

o 

jo 

vO 

H-* 
vO 
VO 
.£. 

3 

O 



o 
p 

O- 

o 
o 



o 



.RING 



CAPITOL 



M 113 



), CALIFORNIA 



'EBRUARY 9, 1994 
40 P.M. 



25 
26 
27 
28 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1994 
1:40 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

THOMAS J. GIAQUINTO, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

CAROLE A. HOOD, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Mental Health 

CATHERINE CAMP 

California Mental Health Directors Association 

CARLOS L. LOPEZ, Deputy Director 
Employment Development Department 

VINCENT C. PALMER, Member 
Youthful Offender Parole Board 

DOROTHY MONTGOMERY 

ELEANOR F. BRANNON 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

THOMAS J. GIAQUINTO, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Judgments on Release of Prisoners 2 

Toughest Decision So Far 4 

Number Reviewed 4 

Ratio of Those Granted Parole Dates 5 

Recidivism among Determinate Versus 

Indeterminate 6 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Most Important Factors in Determining 

Suitability for Parole 7 

Ability of Institution's Medical Professionals 

to Block Paroles 8 

Right of Governor to Review Parole Dates 9 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Credit for Work in School while Incarcerated ... 10 

Credit for Work while Incarcerated 11 

Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 13 

CAROLE A. HOOD, Chief Deputy Director 

Department of Mental Health 13 

Background and Experience 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Hardest Part of Job 15 



IV 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Institutional Tensions between Different 

Perspectives 16 

Direction of State Hospitals in Future 16 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Adequacy of Clinton Health Proposals 17 

Distinction between Mentally 111 and 

Physically 111 in Hospital Stays 18 

Witness in Support; 

CATHERINE CAMP 

California Mental Health Directors Association .... 19 

Motion to Confirm 19 

Committee Action 2 

CARLOS L. LOPEZ, Deputy Director 

Employment Development Department 2 

Background and Experience 2 

Question by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Santa Clara County Program Operators 

Association 23 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Maximizing Use of Federal Defense 

Conversion Monies 24 

Working with Local Agencies 24 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Notion for Redesign of JTPA 2 5 

Possible Waste of Federal Funds 2 6 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Entrepreneurship Training Programs 2 6 

Past Successful Efforts in Bay Area 27 



V 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Request to Pursue Entrepreneurship Program 

with Trade and Commerce Agency 2 8 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

St. Mary's College's Outreach Programs 

in Entrepreneurship 2 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Involvement of State Job Coordinating Council . . 2 9 

New Occupations 3 

Technology Reinvestment Project 31 

Motion to Confirm 31 

Committee Action 32 

VINCENT C. PALMER, Member 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 32 

Background and Experience 3 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

How to Reduce Re-offenses and Address 

Gang Violence 34 

Reasons for Dramatic Change in Types 

of Commitment Offenses 34 

Addressing the Gang Problem 35 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Possibility of Early Releases to Hold Down 

Population at Institutions 36 

Motion to Confirm 37 

Witnesses with Concerns: 

DOROTHY MONTGOMERY 3 7 

ELEANOR BRANNON 38 

"Three Meals and a Cot" 39 



VI 



INDEX (Continued) 

Question by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Necessity of Expenditures on Training 

Inmates 40 

Committee Action 41 

Termination of Proceedings 41 

Certificate of Reporter 42 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--O0O00-- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Going to Item One, gubernatorial 
appointees, we have a number that were required to appear. I 
guess, taking them in order, our first is Mr. Giaquinto, and I 
probably haven't said that right. 

Good afternoon. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any prepared comments 
that you'd like us to hear about your qualifications? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, I'm sure that one of your 
concerns is why I may be qualified for this position that I've 
been appointed to. And to that issue, I would inform the 
Senators, very briefly, of my background. 

I recently retired from the San Diego Police 
Department, and as you know, it ' s a city of one million-plus 
people, after having served there honorably for 24 years. 

Prior to that, I was in the United States Navy for 
four years as a Navy corpsman, and I was stationed with the 
United States Marine Corps for several years in my time in the 
Navy . 

While I was with the Police Department, I served in 
various functions. I was in Investigations for approximately 18 
years of that time, and I achieved the rank of Lieutenant. I 
was in the first category of the Captain's promotional process 
when I retired. During the time that I was in Investigations, I 
served in a number of different investigative units, including 
Homicide, and Vice, Robbery, and I was a cross-sworn federal 



agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

And what that really tells you is that I was a police 
officer for 24 years, and I was given an opportunity to work 
within the justice system in many different facets of the 
justice system: everything from the issuance of a citation when 
I was a very young police officer, to completing investigations, 
very complex investigations, and seeing the investigations 
through to successful prosecutions, and ultimately, 
incarceration of the perpetrators of those crimes. 

And during investigations, you have to look through 
the complexities, not only to identify the perpetrators of the 
crimes, but also to eliminate those that are not guilty of the 
offense, or maybe an accusing finger has been pointed at them 
and they should not be prosecuted. So, there's many complex 
issues that involve being an investigator in law enforcement and 
working within the judicial system. 

And learning the system, learning the appeals system, 
having cases taken to the Supreme Court, looking for the 
pitfalls in improper decisions, and in effect, I've been in 
training for more than two decades for this position, Senator. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you think it helps you make 
a judgment about who should be released or not? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, sir, there's many different 
issues that come into play about whether someone should be given 
parole. And you have to, first of all, maintain objectivity 
when you're dealing with the law, because the law mandates who 
shall or shall not be released on parole, and who may be 



suitable, and you have to work within the parameters of what the 
law provides. So therefore, you have to consider every aspect 
of the suitability in terms of whether the person is going to 
re-offend, whether the person truly has insight and remorse into 
the crime, whether that person's been rehabilitated to the point 
that they can go out and successfully compete as a citizen in 
our communities, and not necessarily have to re-offend so that 
they can live, or because they have a propensity towards being a 
criminal . 

Law enforcement trains you to talk with people, to be 
compassionate when it's necessary, to be objective. You cannot 
successfully retire from law enforcement and not be objective 
because there ' s too many checks and balances above your 
position. Everything from the D.A. who investigates the case, 
to the United States Supreme Court will look at everything 
you've done from the time you've contacted that person to see if 
you've made a fair and impartial decision, and you were 
objective in the proceedings that brought you to prosecute or to 
arrest this person. 

And the same principles have to be applied when 
you're talking to a prisoner about suitability. You have to 
look at that person. You have to see, first of all, if you are 
being fair and impartial. Are you going to be overturned on an 
appeal? Are you going to make bad law that's going to impact 
the entire state by not making sure that the prisoner's rights 
have been protected? And there are many rights that the 
prisoners have and have to be protected by any person that 
considers suitability. That the citizens' concerns are taken 



into effect. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've been there about seven 
months . 

MR. GIAQUINTO: About seven months, yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What comes to mind as the toughest 



decision you've had to make so far? 



13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



MR. GIAQUINTO: I would say that there's no one 
specific case, but in general, it's those prisoners that have 
programmed well in terms of vocational programming, educational 
programming. They've been disciplinary free while they've been 
in prison, and they may or may not have been the person that 
actually committed the murder. They may have been a crime 
partner. And the person does not seem -- they have no prior 
criminality, and everything is in their favor, and it seems that 
they probably will not re-offend, but there's a question about 
whether they need to serve more time simple because the act was 
such a terrible and atrocious act to begin with. 

And those are real tough sometimes, because if 
someone's served 10 or 12 years, and they've been sentenced to 
25 years to life, but they're a model prisoner, what do you do? 
You have to -- there's many things you have to weigh very, very 
carefully, and not only the rights of the citizens and whether 
our citizens what this murderer to be paroled, but the law does 
provide that they are eligible for parole, provided they've met 
all the criteria that we're concerned about. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many have you had to review in 
seven months? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, sir, I can only guess. It's an 



average of about 12 to 15 a week, and I've been doing it for 
about 7 months, so that's about 90 a month. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any sense of the ratio of those 
that were scheduled for released versus those that were denied 
during that time? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: In terms of what, sir? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your determinations that you made, 
where you either denied a parole request, or someone was 
scheduled for release. How many are there in each basket? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: In terms of those that I thought may 
be eligible for parole but were not granted parole? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, I would say less than five 
percent . 

I've had some interesting experiences since I've been 
there. And I'm still in the learning phase. 

My experience has been that many times, what appears 
at face value to be a prisoner that probably is suitable for 
parole, once you start probing into the issues of insight and 
remorse, and many times you will find that the prisoner, even 
though they've been given a clear bill of health by 
psychiatrists and other people employed by the various 
correctional institutions, that after 10 or 15 years, the 
prisoner is still trying to mitigate his or her individual 
involvement in the crime, you know. So, that changes the 
complexion of everything you've just looked at, where the 
psychiatric report was favorable, and they've programmed well, 
and there's relatively no disciplines. 



Does that answer your question? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Partly. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: I might have got off on a tangent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, no. I just mostly want to 
engage you and have us sort of understand who you are. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The statistic I recall is 
something like three percent of the prisoners subject to 
indeterminate sentences re-offend after they're released. That 
it's the determinate bunch that are much more likely to be back. 

Does that seem right to you? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, sir, you know, I can't really 
speak intelligently to that issue, and I'll tell you why. 

I've heard the same thing you've heard, sir. In 
fact, I heard two percent, to be perfectly honest with you. 

But when I heard it, I asked for all of the 
information. Are we saying they don't re-offend on the same 
type of crime? In other words, a murderer doesn't go out and 
commit another murder except two percent of the time. Or, you 
know, what are the statistics? They never get in trouble again, 
or they commit other offenses but not a murder? 

So, I don't know, sir. I can't answer that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The claim I heard is, not back for 
any felonies, but then, this is normal conversation, not studies 
that are pushed in my face. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from other Members? 
Senator Ayala. 



SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Giaquinto, what factors in your 
review are most important in determining when an inmate, 
convicted of murder or rape, is suitable for parole? What do 
you think are the most important factors involved here? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, as I said before, it's 
difficult for me to place any higher degree of importance on one 
aspect of it. You know there's several different segments at a 
suitability hearing. 

They're all so important and have to be taken 
collectively. I definitely want to know if this prisoner has 
insight into why this crime occurred. Why were you there? Why 
did you murder this person; why did you rape this woman and then 
torture her, and then do terrible things to her? How much 
insight do you have? 

And when I have a prisoner before me that is trying 
to mitigate culpability, and saying, "Well, yes, I did this 
terrible crime and I admit that, and you've got me here for it, 
and I'd like to get out. And I've programmed well, except this 
was an accident. I didn't mean to kill her after I raped her. 
I banged into a tree." Or, "She pushed the gun away from me." 

Well, I'm going to explore the police reports to find 
out if there were powder burns on that victim and ask the 
prisoner in depth about that particular event so I can see if 
they're really just -- they have no insight. 

That's real important, because if they're still 
trying to fool the Board, 15 years after the offense, what are 
they going to do on the outside? And, that dovetails right into 
the psychiatric reports, because if the psychiatric report 



8 

indicates that this person either has insight or has 
rehabilitated to some extent, then I would say -- or my next 
question is, "Well, if you've tried to fool the Board today by 
not being completely truthful," and many times we can disprove 
what the prisoner is saying, then, in effect, when they went to 
the psychiatrist or psychologist and were not truthful, that 
would alter the psychiatric opinion of this individual, so 
therefore, the psychiatric report may be null and void, or not 
as accurate as it could be. 

Rehabilitation is very important. 

And I don't know if I'm answering your question quite 
the way you wanted me to, but I think you have to collectively 
take everything into account. 

SENATOR AYALA: You have to ponder many factors. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: You have to. There's so many 
different things. You have to look at the person's background. 
There's a very common thread I see in more than -- and I'm going 
to throw a figure out here. Please don't hold me to it. 

But it seems to me like 80-90 percent of all of the 
murderers that I see come from broken families. 

SENATOR AYALA: Senator McCorquodale had a bill 10 
years ago. Prior to that time, when an inmate had served his 
time, you could not retain that individual; you had to release 
him. But through Senator McCorquodale ' s bill, I recall, it said 
that if the medical profession involved in that institution 
doesn't feel that that person can walk the streets and not cause 
problems to society, they can still retain them as long as 
they're under that medical condition. 



Is that correct? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: I'm not familiar with that, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: One more question. 

Under what circumstances should the Governor have 
authority to review an inmate's established parole date? Is 
there any way that you can tell me when the Governor -- he has 
the authority under any conditions, does he not, to review the 
parole board? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: That's correct. The Governor can 
review the decisions of the parole board. 

SENATOR AYALA: But other than review, what can he do 
with it? Can he refuse the direction the parole board has taken 
and not release that individual? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: The Governor can formally request 
that the Board of Prison Terms reconsider their decision, and 
that decision may have been to grant parole or to deny parole, 
either way. The Governor has the right to formally request that 
the Board reconsider. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Governor can overrule your 
commission? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: The Governor can request that the 
Board consider, en banc , their prior decision. 

SENATOR AYALA: But that hasn't happened lately, has 
it, where the Governor gets involved? 

I know that Governor Deukmejian was very strong in 
that area, but he never once used that opportunity. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, in fact the Governor has, since 
I've been a member of the Board of Prison Terms, has requested 



10 

on several occasions that the Board reconsider decisions that 
had been made. 

SENATOR AYALA: Asked you to reconsider? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Yes, to consider en banc prior 
decisions . 

And I think that's good, because in effect, the 
Governor has, of course, as you well know, a staff of attorneys 
that may review this. And if there was some technical error 
that the Board's committed, I think it's good that we have that 
level of review to send it back and say, "Hey, look, maybe you 
didn't consider this aspect of this prisoner, and maybe they're 
not as suitable or unsuitable as you thought." 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: As I understand the statute, it 
gives him authority to revoke the decision of the Board, not 
just ask for a review. 

But the interesting thing is, after all the fuss in 
getting that passed, the Governor, who really pushed it, never 
used that authority. Maybe as time goes by, we'll get a little 
more experience in that. 

I had a question on work in the prisons. First of 
all, let's take school. If the prisoner goes to school, does he 
get credit for time in completing a course? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Yes. My understanding, and I'm not 
as articulate in that area as I should be, but my understanding 
is that a prisoner that has completed schooling -- and it does 



11 

break it down into high school, two-year degrees, and four-year 
degrees — that a certain amount of credit can be achieved by 
that prisoner when he's being considered for parole. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How about for work? 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Well, I'm not sure. I know that — I 
know this, sir, that when we do grant a date for a prisoner, we 
will go back over all of the preceding years that the prisoner 
has been incarcerated and look at all of the achievements that 
they've had, including vocational, work, programming, whether 
they've completed vocation or educational, and give them credits 
for positive things that they've done during the time that 
they've been incarcerated up to and including the time, you 
know, when we're considering them for suitability. 

Of course, I'm only dealing with lifers. I don't 
know what other good credits — I understand the prisoners can 
achieve good credits under other conditions, good time credits. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought it was a day off for every 
day of work. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: I know we give them four months -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In the determinate universe; under 
the indeterminate it's not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Determinate can do it. 

Well, I asked the question because I've heard some 
things on the radio today from the — or yesterday ~ from the 
Crime Summit. One or two Legislators were demanding that we put 
the prisoners to work. Nobody works in prison. A couple of 
uninformed Legislators adding to the confusion in this whole 
Crime Summit problem. It kind of surprised me that they were 



12 

saying it, "Why don't we put the prisoners to work? They ought 
to be working. " 

Well, I thought they'd been working for a long, long 
time, many, many years. Now, how much credit they get, I don't 
know. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There are waiting lists. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's right. There are waiting 
lists to get into it. 

We've got to, I guess, educate people about that. 

Thank you . 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Thank you, Senator Petris. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone who wishes to 
testify either for or against the matter present? 

What's the — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move Mr. Giaquinto . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend for 
confirmation. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 



13 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. GIAQUINTO: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Carole Hood. 

Good afternoon. Why don't you tell us a little bit 
about this particular job that, I guess, you're already in. 

MS. HOOD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And what you do. 

MS. HOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee . 

I'm glad to have this opportunity to present my 
qualifications. I have been the Chief Deputy Director at the 
Department of Mental Health now for just over nine months. And 
a few weeks ago, my boss, Dr. Stephen Mayberg, who's the 
Director of Mental Health, appeared before the Committee and 
shared his vision for the Department. And in doing so, he spoke 
of the vision and the value system that we have in the 
Department and are trying to instill, which is to develop a 
mental health system that fosters independence and empowers 
consumers, and families, and providers to make positive changes, 
and to grow, and to evolve. 

He also spoke about three initiatives that we have 
undertaken at the Department of Mental Health. One is, first, 
to reorganize the Department so that it truly does reflect the 
values of the mental health system. And also to provide a very 
strong state-level leadership role, which has not been that 
strong in the past, at least in the recent past. 

We are focusing on providing training and technical 



14 

assistance, and to facilitate, really, the counties in 
performing their jobs at the local level. 

The second area that we are implementing is to not 
only improve the service delivery system, but also to seek 
additional federal financial support and other support where we 
can, so that we can really enhance services that can be 
provided. We've already made some pretty dramatic moves in 
terms of gaining additional federal funds through the 
rehabilitation option, and now we're moving into a managemental 
health care system, which is comparable to what is going on in 
Health Services with their managed care, but is the carved out 
portion for Mental Health. 

The other area that we have focused on is to 
restructure and reform the current State Hospital services that 
are provided. And since realignment, we clearly now have become 
another provider of services and have to make sure that we not 
only provide a broader array of services at the hospitals, but 
also to do that in a very cost-effective manner. 

Now, given all of these initiatives, and it's a fair 
amount to undertake, my job at the Department is really for the 
ongoing management of the day-to-day operations, and really to 
make sure that I can work with staff and the constituency that 
we're serving to make sure that all of these different 
initiatives become a reality. 

I've had a — I think my background is well suited to 
this challenge. I've had about 18 years of state service. I 
began as a graduate student assistant for the Department of 
Finance, and have worked up from that through various levels to 



15 

management levels for the past 12 years. 

During this time, I've been the Chief Deputy Director 
for three state agencies: Social Services, Developmental 
Services, and now Mental Health. I've also served as the Deputy 
Secretary for Program and Fiscal Affairs for the Health and 
Welfare Agency, and also as Interim Director for the Department 
of Alcohol and Drug Programs during the transition from Governor 
Brown to Governor Deukmejian. 

I think of particular help for this job have been my 
recent experiences in overseeing State Hospital operations, and 
also participating in the completion of the governance study for 
mental health which was done in the past year. 

All of these experiences have been challenging and 
rewarding, and I think they have prepared me well for this 
current challenge. And I hope that I will have the opportunity 
to continue our efforts with the endorsement of this Committee. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

What's the hardest part of your job? 

MS. HOOD: I think the hardest part of the job is 
managing many different people, many different perspectives in 
the Department, but doing that in a way to invite the input from 
everybody, and then coming to, hopefully, a consensus and moving 
ahead. 

I think I am somewhat of a — very much a thinking 
manager. And although decisions, you hope, are always based 
upon the best information available, I do care about what people 
think and their opinions, we try to incorporate that into what 



16 

we do. I think that's always the most difficult. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any somewhat 
institutional tension between different perspectives that's one 
you cope with regularly? 

MS. HOOD: I think this system has undergone so much 
rapid change since realignment that there are a lot of those 
kinds of tensions in terms of moving ahead. And I think that's 
natural. It's more change than it is a difference in philosophy 
or where we're going. 

I think the nice thing about Mental Health in the 
past couple of years has been the pulling together of all of the 
different constituencies with a shared vision, which is quite 
unique for this field for sometime. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's been a fairly dramatic 
drop in State Hospital admissions, I guess at least partly due 
to the realignment changes. 

MS. HOOD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that likely to continue? Can 
you predict at all the direction of that? 

MS. HOOD: Well, since realignment, so from 1991 
until the current year, we've had a drop in LPS commitments of 
about 800. That's about 30 percent, which is very significant. 

What it has caused us — and of course, the 
relationship has changed, where now the counties have the money 
to purchase the service from the state, and we are, in essence, 
another provider out there, just like any other provider. 

What it has caused us to do is to really re-evaluate 
the types of services that we're providing, and we also have to 



17 

provide those services at an affordable rate. And State 
Hospital services have not been affordable in the past. 

This year, we included in the budget and are on track 
at this point to bring in additional $34 million in federal 
revenue which offsets the cost, and then permits counties to 
purchase at a lower rate. We hope to be successful in that, but 
clearly, I think, State Hospitals will have to be something 
quite different in the future. Bringing in the revenue was a 
short-term, but I think now — and we have a process working at 
this point to look to the long-term: what should the role of 
the state be in delivering services; are there services that we 
can provide more cost effectively than home communities can? If 
that's not the case, our preference is clearly to have the 
service provided in the individual's home community. 

But we're looking at a variety of options, from 
partial hospitalization, to can we do some transition services 
on the campuses of State Hospitals, can we use them to be 
resource centers to community programs, can we provide training 
with some of our very skilled, and just a whole variety of 
things . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you had a chance to study the 
Clinton health proposals -- 

MS. HOOD: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — with respect to mental health? 
Are they adequate? 

MS. HOOD: I think the very good news about the 
Clinton health proposal is that it does address mental health. 



18 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, most proposals don't. 

MS. HOOD: Which many haven't in the past. And so, 
that really is good, and it doesn't preclude pre-existing 
conditions, which has always been a problem for mental health. 

At this point, there are things that we would like to 
see much different. Right now it is very much in-patient based 
and very much medical model; where now we're talking about 
trading days of in-patient for out-patient services. 

What we would like to see is a much more flexible 
benefit plan so that we can do some of the things that we've 
piloted in California with our systems of care approach to 
service delivery. And if it focuses and stays focused on just 
the in-patient, it could be problematic for us. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm delighted to say the same 
thing you did, that at least this plan addresses the mentally 
ill and provides some substantial improvement over prior plans. 

But they still distinguish between the mentally ill 
and the other rest of the physical ailments. I don't know why 
in the world we make that distinction, unless it's a budgetary 
consideration. We don't stay you can only stay in the hospital 
so long if you have tuberculosis, for example, or some other 
thing. It doesn't make sense to me. 

Don't you think the state, well, the nation should 
have a program that provides whatever care is necessary without 
these arbitrary time periods for in-patient especially? 

MS. HOOD: For mental health, it would make a lot 
more sense for us to have it be more flexible, and that's clear. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I remember one time Governor Pat 



19 

Brown was concerned about this, and he issued an Executive 
Order. I don't know if it's still in effect, but with respect 
to state employees, he said to the insurance companies that 
their contract was going to be conditioned on whether or not 
they offered services for the mentally ill, and compelled them 
to include a program for the mentally ill, which had never been 
done before. 

Beyond that, we haven't legislated it, but it seems 
to rue we ought to revisit that, because it's an increasing 
problem. More and more people are having the problem. 

I'm glad to hear you support the flexibility where we 
can do something. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Senators? 

Is there anyone present who would wish to comment? 

MS. CAMP: Catherine Camp, representing the 
California Mental Health Directors Association. 

We'd like to strongly urge you to confirm Ms. Hood. 
The leadership that she and Dr. Mayberg have provided has made a 
dramatic difference in our ability to delivery good services to 
the mentally ill as a partnership between the state and 
counties. We'd urge you to endorse that leadership. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Questions? Other commentors? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I'd like to move the confirmation to 
the Floor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. 

Let's call the roll, please. 



20 



7 
8 
9 

in 
n 

12 
13 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

5 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

6 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



17 
18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Lockyer 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 
MS. HOOD: Thank you very much. 



14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 

Mr. Lopez is our next appointee. 
16 



How do you do, sir? 

MR. LOPEZ: Fine, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to tell us a little 
about yourself and your qualifications for the job? 

MR. LOPEZ: I have about a three-minute prepared 
statement, if I may. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certainly. 

MR. LOPEZ: Talk a little bit about the branch and 
responsibilities, and then my qualifications as they relate to 
the position. 

As the Deputy Director of the Employment Training 
Branch, I will be responsible for the administration and 
oversight of the Job Training Partnership Act, JTPA. For next 



4 



7 



10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



21 

program year, it is estimated that the state will receive $550 
million for the training of economically disadvantaged persons 
3 and displaced workers . 

We have the oversight of the delivery system 
throughout the state, and our role, of course, is to provide 
direction to the service delivery system throughout the state, 
to provide up to date training and job placement services for 
the unemployed. This means working with the local partners, 
including the private sector, service providers, and local 
governments, and assisting displaced workers, and the 
economically disadvantaged with job training and employment. 

The other oversight includes the Los Angeles Recovery 
Team that we have oversight over, which is working with local 
government in Los Angeles for the civil unrest funds that we 
have in Los Angeles, as well as the more recent Northridge 
earthquake. 

The other oversight is the Governor's Committee for 
the Employment of Disabled Persons and the Governor's Task Force 
for Employment of Older Workers, which is education and getting 
the word out to the public sector and private sectors in terms 
of job opportunities for those groups. 



22 In terms of qualifications, I'd like to state that 

all my professional work life of 21 years, excluding two years 

24 



25 
26 

27 
28 



of serving in the United States Army, has been either in the 
administration of training programs, with the hands-on 
experience of serving people by training them and placing them 
into full-time employment with the private sector. I've been a 
basic education instructor, a statistics supervisor, to job 



7 



10 
11 



22 

developer, a Director of Training Operations, and a Regional 
Director of Training, managing up to ten training sites in 
Central and Northern California. 

4 ' This experience has allowed me the opportunity to 

5 manage successful training programs in 27 demand occupations, 
and the job placement of over 2,500 persons per year, very much 
hands-on type training experience with people in the private 
sector. 

9 Clients served include welfare recipients, migrant 

and seasonal farmworkers, veterans, older workers, ex-offenders, 
people with physical disabilities, and the economically 

12 disadvantaged. 

The most recent years of my professional experience 
have involved the retraining and job placement of displaced 
workers primarily as a result of downsizing in the electronic 
manufacturing industry and automotive industry in Central 
California. 

Over the years, I've worked with local and government 
officials, as well as state and federal training agencies. In 
my previous position as the Assistant Director of the Employment 
Training Panel, I have had opportunity for even greater insight 
and understanding of retraining and upgrading the skills of 
people in order for them to remain productive and keep their 
jobs in an ever changing job market 

25 As Deputy Director of the Employment Training Branch, 

it is my vision that we in California have the most productive 
work force in the country. People need jobs with higher wages, 
and the private sector needs highly skilled productive 



15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



26 

27 
28 



23 



10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



employees. We can accomplish this by having a delivery system 
that provides training opportunities for people to obtain the 
skills necessary to prepare a work force for the private sector 
employment needs . 

Thank you for your consideration. I'll answer any 
questions you may have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, sir. 

Are there questions from Members? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have questions, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven and then Senator 
Lockyer . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: This is very, very simply a question 
to understand what I have here in my book. 

Santa Clara County Programs Operators Association; 
can you tell me what that is, please? 

MR. LOPEZ: Yes. In Santa Clara County, there were 
18 or more training providers in the valley who provided direct 
services to the private sector. And in all cases, they were 
funded under the Job Training Partnership Act. 

I served as their Chairperson for almost three years, 
and also was their appointed person to the local Private 
Industry Council in Santa Clara County. So, I represented the 
Program Operators Association or training agencies on the 
Private Industry Council as a community-based organization 
representative . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 



4 



24 

SENATOR AYALA: My question is, Mr. Lopez, what is 
2 your office doing to maximize the use of Federal Defense 

Conversion monies that are available in California? How are you 
utilizing them to maximize those monies? 
5 MR. LOPEZ: What we do is work through the delivery 

system throughout California. And what we do is have the 
service delivery area administrators, if you will, outreach down 
to the companies that have been affected by downsizing. And 
in fact, we have what is called a Rapid Response Team within the 
Department, the Employment Development Department, where there's 
a requirement that within 48 hours, that if a company is closing 
down, that they give us a warn notice, a notice of downsizing or 
laying off employees, to go out to the company immediately and 
work out a plan of service to the people that are affected by 
the downsizing. 

In fact, what we do within the Department, there are 
many industries, including war industries, for example, in 
Riverside, and many other companies where EDD immediately goes 
out, if you will, to go into the companies and provide immediate 
assessment and job placement services, or referral into a 
training program if they need retraining. 
22 SENATOR AYALA: But you are working with local 

agencies? 

24 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



25 
26 

27 
28 



MR. LOPEZ: That is correct. We work with the local 
partners. Much of the delivery system is local decision making. 
Not just the local elected officials, but the people who manage 
the training programs locally throughout California. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 



25 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you were to redesign either 
state or federal JTPA, do you have any sort of conceptual notion 
about what direction you'd go differently, or a structure that 
you would prefer? 

5 MR. LOPEZ: The JTPA program? 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MR. LOPEZ: I think — I think that's a very good 

question. I think let me start that the Job Training 
Partnership Act program is one program in California among 2 3 in 
the state. And the 2 3 programs combined represent approximately 
$3 billion in employment and training dollars. 

And I think that both at the state level and at the 
local level, there's a better -- there's a need for coordination 
among those training programs to outreach to the community to 
train people and to the private sector. 

So, I think part of the redesign is formal linkages, 
if you will, with other training providers locally, and provide 
resource information to the people who need training, and to 
provide it to them as quickly as possible. Each program has a 
different set of rules, and I think there's a need for 
commonality of rules. We have 23 different sets of regulations, 
for example, on these 23 different programs. And there's some 
confusion, obviously, out in the community, with the private 
sector and the people, and there's the need for coordinating 
that more effectively. 

It goes beyond JTPA, but that's in the bigger 
picture . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I noted Senator Johnston, who 



26 

Chairs the Industrial Relations Committee for us, is currently 
considering ways to integrate and better manage those disparate 
programs, and I'd encourage you to check in with him to share 
your thoughts . 



5 MR. LOPEZ: I shall do that. 



10 
11 
12 
13 



As a matter of fact, he has a representative on our 
new State Job Coordinating Council, and has taken a very active 
role in that effort. 
9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are we wasting any significant 

chunk of the 3 billion? 

MR. LOPEZ: I — that is — there are -- all these 
other programs are distinct and different. I am not the expert 
on those other programs. I could not really dialogue on the 



14 others . 

I would have concern regarding some of the programs 
16 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



that I am aware of in terms of being closer to the private 
sector. There are some good points and bad points about other 
programs . 

In the GAIN program, which is outside JTPA, that 
services welfare recipients, my experience in training welfare 
recipients over the years is that they need not just self- 
esteem building and industrial skill work habit training, but 
real technical training for the private sector. It's full-time 
training that they need, not just social services, but direct 
training for the private sector. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is there any training program for 
entrepreneurs at the present time? 



27 

MR. LOPEZ: We have, just as an exception to the rule 
as part of the Los Angeles Recovery Project, some 
entrepreneurship training programs, which is unique and 
different from normal training programs, and that's under -- 
that's because there's been a waiver to the state funding 
allowed for the civil unrest in Los Angeles. And we are 
providing some entrepreneurship training in the Long Beach area 
for people who want to go into their own businesses, but those 
training programs, it's my understanding, are limited. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it too early to tell, to rate 
them as to how successful they are? 

MR. LOPEZ: On the entrepreneurship -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. LOPEZ: — side of it? 

I could not answer that, sir. I'm not real familiar 
with the entrepreneurship end of training programs . 

SENATOR PETRIS: The reason I asked, I carried a bill 
years ago to create entrepreneurship. All these training 
programs are great, and they're designed to help people to lack 
the skills. A lot of them are in the minority community. And I 
felt, why don't we elevate the sights? Why get them to think 
about owning a business, being the boss, and learning how to run 
it? 

And Governor Deukmejian vetoed it, but he told me 
that he thought it was a good idea, and that he would try to 
have EDD do it administratively, and he did. They did some 
pretty good things. I remember in the Bay Area, we worked with 
the Business Council on a cooperative effort in that program, 



28 



4 



8 



and every year there was a luncheon in Oakland honoring the 
Entrepreneur of the Year, who was trained by that program. Now 
he's out there, or she, a successful business person. 

Are there any remnants of that part of the training 
left, or did they leave when Deukmejian left? 
6 MR. LOPEZ: I'm not familiar with that program, sir, 

in terms of what they've done at that point. 

I've been in this position ten months as a Deputy 
Director of Employment and Training Branch, and of course, very 
familiar with the Employment Training Panel Program. 

I think it ' s an area where the Trade and Commerce 
Agency is very involved in terms of working with businesses and 
entrepreneurship. Our role is the work force preparation of 
workers with new and upcoming jobs, and the entrepreneurship end 
of it has been very limited. 

But it's something that we can pursue and come back. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I'd like that. I'd appreciate 
it if you could follow through. And if Trade and Commerce is 
doing it, I'd like to find out who's in charge so I can pursue 
that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Following Senator Petris ' s comment, I notice that you 
have an undergraduate degree in management. I'm wondering if 
your alma mater does anything in an outreach sense to try to 
bring in people into what obviously must touch upon an 
entrepreneurial program? 

MR. LOPEZ: Well, St. Mary's College is a fine 



12 
13 
14 
1? 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



29 



4 



7 



college, and they -- they have excellent management programs for 
undergraduate degrees, and now, I understand, MBA degrees. 
So, they are one program like others that are seeking 
entrepreneurship-type education from a formal point of view. 

So clearly, that's, if you will, in the academic 
system, the academic or four-year college institutions, and 
therein probably lies a lot of entrepreneurship kind of 
thinking, or the school of thought of entrepreneurship in an 
academic sense. 

There is a transition occurring at the federal level 
that's impacting us at the state, and a changing, if you will, 
of legislation, as we understand it, so that more 
entrepreneurship programs could be funded for persons interested 
in entrepreneur-type employment. 

So, we have been tied down to the current laws and 
regulations for the retraining of dislocated workers, for 
example, but my understanding is that under Secretary Raisch, 
18 they are re-looking at entrepreneurship regulations. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Part of your responsibilities 
involve the Job Training Coordinating Council. Are you in that 
loop? 

MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir, very much so. 

The new State Job Coordinating Council membership is 
very much looking at the broader picture of employment and 
training programs. As I mentioned, the JTPA is only one of 23. 
They are looking at the whole policy issue of work force 
preparation for the future. They are looking very carefully at 



10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



30 

preparing a strategic plan for training people for the future 
job market, if you will, for the state. 

Our role, my role, is the administrative portion of 
the Job Training Partnership Act. There are certain plans and 
policies that must go before the Council for their approval. We 
also work within the Department, which is the Employment 
Development Department, on policy analysis, which is, again, the 
broader picture, not just the one singular program of JTPA, and 
of course with Council staff, the State Job Coordinating Council 
staff . 

So, our role is to present the policies, 
recommendations, to the Council for their recommendation as it 
relates to the Job Training Partnership program, and their own 
recommendations down to the delivery system in terms of new and 
emerging occupations. I think they are the ones that are going 
to take a greater lead to give direction to the delivery system 
on what the needs of businesses are and what the needs of people 
are for training them for new occupations. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are those? 

MR. LOPEZ: This is a new Council, and some of the 
information I have, just very briefly, are those that are in the 
vehicle industry; big potential job market there. The 
electronics industry, including panels, flat panel industry. 
There is an emerging industry in the medical field with a 
variety of technology, including lasers. Just a variety of 
things that are coming up. 

Much of this has come forward from the Technology 
Reinvestment Project applications that have come from the 



31 

private sector. The state has received, through Trade and 
Commerce, over 300 applications for matching funds for research 
and development. And that research and development, over the 
next few years, will determine the kind of occupations that will 
be in the State of California, which is in the light vehicle 
industry, again electronics, laser, and medical, and a few 
others are outlined. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's that pot of money? 

MR. LOPEZ: The Technology Reinvestment Project. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's federal? 

MR. LOPEZ: It's federal funds. And as I understand 
it, there's over $750 million, and California's pending about 25 
percent of the federal funds for research and development. 

And our role in there is the training/matching 
portion. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

Are there people who would wish to comment, either 
pro or con? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move the nomination to the Floor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Craven. 

Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 



32 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Lockyer . 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Vince Palmer, good afternoon. 

MR. PALMER: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, do you want to tell us about 
what you're doing here? 

MR. PALMER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you like this job? 

MR. PALMER: I love it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you? 

MR. PALMER: I've been on the Youthful Offender 
Parole Board for a little over six months now as a result of the 
appointment. However, I started my career with the California 
Youth Authority itself in 1968. 

I was hired on as a teacher at the institution 
located in Whittier. I spent approximately five or six years 
teaching at that institution, and then -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: At least you didn't have truants. 

MR. PALMER: We had runaways. In fact, I believe, 
several went over the fence that year. 

Shortly after that experience as a teacher in the 
institution, I began to experience custody and the treatment 
aspect of the institution, and moved into a staff training role, 
where I trained new and existing staff in the policies and 



33 

procedures of running an institution. 

I then moved into a mid-management position and 
supervised living units and the living unit staff. From there, 
I went into what we called a due process coordinator's position. 
In that position, I was responsible for the investigations of 
inmate misbehavior and also coordinated the ward rights 
grievance procedure that had been established by that time. 

From there, I left to become a parole agent in the 
San Bernardino County area, Senator Ayala ' s territory, and 
established a specialized gang caseload, the first in that area. 
I covered the territory from Chino east to the City of San 
Bernardino, and handled nothing but gang members, which was 
quite an experience. 

From that position, I moved to the Riverside County 
office and did basically the same thing, and eventually to Long 
Beach, and then to Orange County, where I established an Asian 
gang caseload, the first of that kind, in Southern California. 

As you probably know, there are more Vietnamese 
located in the Westminster-Garden Grove area than anywhere else 
in the United States, so that has been quite an experience. 

Concurrent with the parole experience, I was also a 
representative for all of the field parole agents in the State 
of California through the collective bargaining process, and did 
negotiate all of the various kinds of programs that parole was 
involved in. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, you're a teacher, so I ' d 
invite you to school a little and just take a moment to teach us 
what you've learned about youthful offenders. How do we address 



34 

or minimize or reduce the problem of re-offense, or offenses in 
the first place, and gangs particularly, and what we might do to 
be doing a better job in addressing gang violence and numbers? 

MR. PALMER: First of all, I should say that, 
beginning with the Youth Authority in 1968, we were dealing with 
a much different individual than we're dealing with today. The 
great majority of wards in the Youth Authority at that time were 
your status offenders: your runaways and your incorrigibles . 
This was my beginnings . 

Shortly thereafter, with the Olivas decision, and the 
establishment of probation subsidy, the population of the Youth 
Authority changed dramatically. The status offenders were no 
longer housed with us. We maintained only 602, or criminal 
type, wards in the institution. 

The more serious offenders came back to us from the 
Department of Corrections. They were being housed at that time 
in their institutions. 

We began to see the emergence of the street gangs; 
namely, the Crypts and Bloods, at that time. The older Hispanic 
gangs, of course, had been around for a long time, but this was 
a new phenomena. Later, we began to see the emergence of the 
white gangs and the racist-type activities. 

So, the inmate in the institution has progressively 
grown more aggressive and more criminally inclined. The types 
of commitment offenses that we're seeing now are just shocking. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What happened? 

MR. PALMER: In my opinion, what happened was, I 
think a critical, critical thing that happened was the removal 



35 

of the status offender from a locked facility. When parents no 
longer had the authority or the juvenile justice system no 
longer had the authority to take an incorrigible or a runaway 
and detain them for any period of time, so that they understood 
that their behavior was accountable, we lost something. I think 
parents lost, and I think the schools lost. 

About that same time, the expansion of juveniles' 
rights seemed to have occurred. The concept of just about full 
and complete rights as a juvenile and as an adult again eroded 
the authority of the school system and the parent, and the 
children began to know that. 

I know personally people who ask, "What can I do with 
my child, a 13-year old who wants to run away? There's nothing 
I can do. " 

That kind of an attitude, along with the movement of 
more and more men and women in the work force, latch-key kids, 
lack of supervision, the emergence of the street gangs and the 
spread of the street gangs, and the spread of the violence, has 
all compounded the problem and led us to where we're at today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything specifically that we 
should do to address the gang problem, in your view? 

You've talked about some sort of mega-trends, which 
may or may not be susceptible to change. 

MR. PALMER: In my opinion, we're being invaded. Our 
cities are under invasion by the street gangs, and we need to 
somehow gain control of the street to make this a safe place to 
live again. To make it safe for the kids who want to go to 
school, who want to succeed, who want to work, who want to obey 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



36 

the rules and regulations . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you do that? 

MR. PALMER: That is a difficult question. 

I think we need to start dealing with some of these 
young street gang members as adults, and meting out adult-type 
punishments . 

I think we need to also start at the elementary 
schools. I had experience to do this in the Orange County area. 
Another parole agent and myself would visit the elementary 
schools and talk to kids about the criminal justice system, and 
about gangs, and where that was leading them. 

It was no surprise to them. They had brothers and 
sisters who were active gang members and had seen violence in 
their homes and their neighborhoods. 

But that's our only hope, at the very youngest level; 
the very youngest level . 

SENATOR AYALA: Question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala . 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Palmer, looking through the bio, 
you are a member of the Western Gang Association? 

MR. PALMER: I was when I worked in that county. 

SENATOR AYALA: The February 2nd memo that we have 
tells us that CYA institutions are designed for 8,727 wards — 
strike that. They're designed for 5,850, but now they're 
housing 8,727 wards. 

Is the Board now allowing early releases to these 
selected wards in order to hold down the population? 

MR. PALMER: No. Every case that I'm aware of, that 



37 

I've sat on, has been dealt with on an individual basis. We're 
evaluating the merits of that particular case and making the 
decision. 

Of course, we're limited by age, and that's a major 
factor. 

SENATOR AYALA: But the criteria do not include 
selective wards ' early release in order to keep 

MR. PALMER: I've never been asked to release a ward 
early for population purposes, nor do I know anyone else who has 
been asked to do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

Is there anyone in the audience who would wish to 
make a comment? 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Moved by Senator Ayala. 

Yes, ma'am. Do you want to come on up? 

MS. MONTGOMERY: My question is about the — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us your name. 

MS. MONTGOMERY: My name is Dorothy Montgomery. 

My question is, giving -- working with youth as adult 
offenders, and I know they're committing rapes, and different 
other kinds of crimes, but do you think that putting them away 
longer, and them being aware that they're going to be put away 
longer, is going to cause them to commit more heinous kinds of 
crimes? Like, if they were going to just shoot one person, 
maybe they'll shoot 20 of them because they think that they're 
not going to get out ever? 



38 

MR. PALMER: In my opinion, no. 

MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Come on up, have a chair, and 
identify yourself. 

MS. BRANNON: My name is Eleanor Brannon. 

I just wanted to ask, you talk about using the system 
of trying children as adults, which I agree with. I feel that 
it's possibly one of the ways that we can sort of make an 
incentive-type of program to keep them from committing these 
crimes . 

But in the long term, have you thought about 
addressing -- have you addressed that issue at all? I mean, 
what were the plans with something like that? 

MR. PALMER: Well, whether you're aware of it or not, 
we are already trying some juveniles as adults. 

MS. BRANNON: Right. I've seen some cases of that, 
and possibly -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's an age limit, and it's up 
to the court. It's up to the local court which track they're 
on, juvenile or adult. 

MS. BRANNON: Well, I just — I've recently started 
trying to research the issue of crime and justice and things 
that we've done in our country, and what is recently being used, 
of course, as you know, is from our past, and it's no longer 
really viable these days. 

And do you really see an increasing to trying youth 
as adult criminals? 

MR. PALMER: Yes. 



39 

When you take a look at the inmates, wards, in the 
Youth Authority today, the Youth Authority statistics show that 
67 -- approximately 67 percent of the wards in the Youth 
Authority are in for violent offenses; violent against persons. 

Just a few years ago, seven, eight years ago, that 
was -- that kind of a figure was for property offenses and drug 
offenses . 

We are seeing young people coming through our system 
that are committing serious murders, serious sexual crimes, 
serious arson crimes on the persons of the State of California. 
And some how, that has to stop. 

If it requires incarceration to do that, to break 
that pattern, then I think it's necessary. 

MS. BRANNON: Are you aware, though, also of -- I had 
heard a little rap song by one of the groups that looks at 
prison as three meals and a cot. And there was also a 
television program where they showed a young gentleman being 
tried for a crime, and he says, "All you're doing is offering me 
three meals and a cot." 

I think it would also -- not only trying them as 
adult offenders, but also putting something else there that 
would make it even harder -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's called a knife and rape. 
There's plenty of not pleasant things that go on. 

MS. BRANNON: You're right. I'm very aware of -- 

MR. PALMER: I would suggest that you visit a Youth 
Authority institution and look at the various programs that are 
available, far and above many of the programs that are available 



40 

in the community in terms of education and vocational training, 
psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment. The 
institutions expend great amounts of money to provide the 
treatment and training for these young people. 

Whether they choose to take advantage of it or not, 
of course, is only up to them. But three meals and a cot is not 
the Youth Authority. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you, Mr. Palmer, think that 
those other expenditures are necessary and appropriate? 

MR. PALMER: Oh, most certainly. We have young 
people incarcerated for serious crimes. It doesn't mean that we 
throw the key away on them. 

The mission of the Youth Authority is to provide 
treatment and training, as well as to protect the public. How 
else can you do that other than providing the programs? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for being forthright. I 
think we have a good sense of your direction and person. 

Senator Ayala made the motion. Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 



41 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. PALMER: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:45 P.M. ] 

— 00O00-- 



42 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

yy IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 




this / / day of February, 1994. 





2VELYN J. MLZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



245-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 245-R when ordering.